Author Archives: Prof. Jon Fairburn

Avatar photo

About Prof. Jon Fairburn

Professor of Sustainable Development.

New book – City Regions and Devolution in the UK

Posted on by

David Beel (MMU), Martin Jones (Staffordshire University) and Ian Rees Jones (Cardiff University) have a new book out.

About the book

Rich in case study insights, the book provide a critque of city-region building and considers how governance restructuring shapes the political, economic, social and cultural geographies of devolution. Case studies include Greater Manchester, Sheffield, Swansea Bay City Region, Cardiff Capital Region and the North Wales Growth Deal.

Book cover

To purchase the book follow this link

An open access EPDF and EPUB is available on this link

Martin Jones is Deputy Vice Chancellor and Professor of Human Geography at Staffordshrie University. He works closely with colleagues in Staffordshire Business School on regional industrial startegy and the political economy. He tweets @spatialityjones

Webinar: Air Quality Inequity for Clean Air Day 2021

Posted on by

On Clean Air Day 17th June 2021, the Environment Agency will be hosting presentations and panel discussions on environmental equity and presenting interim findings from the ‘Joint Air Quality Health Inequalities’ project. Join us to hear the latest air quality and inequity updates with a focus on the ‘lived experiences’ of those most effected by inequity.

Date: Thursday 17th June 2021 Time 10:00 – 12:00

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84418088277?pwd=L09oU0grYkYraFBVeEVMbTJWTkp2QT09

Meeting ID: 844 1808 8277 Passcode: 7ARbT0

Overview:

At a population level air pollution presents the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK. Air pollution can lead to both short and long term health term issues for all, but impacts on some groups more than others, such as the young and elderly, minority ethnic communities, those living in areas of high deprivation, those with existing health inequities and those working in high exposure jobs. We know that the inequities gap is widening and that these inequities have been exacerbated by Covid-19.

Webinar 1# : Inequities, Challenges, ‘AQ Inequalities Project’ Summary & Review

Overview: Framing key issues and the main challenges that exist, as well as presenting interim findings from the ‘Joint Air Quality Inequalities’ project.

Time: 10:00 – 11:00

  • Presentation on ‘Joint Air quality Inequalities Project’ – Joe Swift & Julian Watkins (Environment Agency)

Webinar 2#: Lived Experiences – Outcomes/Actions/Solutions

Overview: NGO and community action and lived experience; exploring success stories; interventions and innovative projects.

Time: 11:00 – 12:00

  • Panel discussion

#CleanAirDay

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84418088277?pwd=L09oU0grYkYraFBVeEVMbTJWTkp2QT09

Meeting ID: 844 1808 8277 Passcode: 7ARbT0 Time 10.00-12.00 17th June

Author details

Jon Fairburn is Professor Sustainable Development at Staffordshire University. He maintains an air quality list on twitter here. You can access his publications here.

Email jon.fairburn@staffs.ac.uk

Clean Air Day 2021
#CleanAirDay 2021

Research on SME innovation especially in traditional manufacturing regions Part 2

Posted on by

By Prof Geoff Pugh and Prof Jon Fairburn

Part 1 of this article can be found here

  • Radicic, D., Pugh, G. and Douglas, D. (2018). Promoting cooperation in innovation ecosystems: Evidence from European traditional manufacturing SMEs, Small Business Economics. Accepted 01-08-2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0088-3

Abstract

We investigate whether public support for innovation increases the propensity of SMEs in traditional manufacturing industries to cooperate for innovation—in particular, for incremental innovation—with other firms and external knowledge providers. Using data from seven EU regions, we find that support programmes do not promote cooperation with competitors, marginally promote cooperation with customers and suppliers and strongly promote cooperation with knowledge providers. These findings suggest that, in this case, the role of public policy is systems conforming rather than systems creating. Innovation support programmes can assist SMEs in traditional manufacturing industry to consolidate and/or extend their innovation ecosystems beyond familiar business partners by promoting cooperation with both private and public sector knowledge providers. Finally, our findings suggest that evaluation studies of innovation support programmes should be designed to capture not only input and/or output additionality but also behavioural and systemic effects.

Keywords

SMEs; Traditional manufacturing industry; Innovation ecosystems; Innovation policy; Cooperation for innovation; Behavioural additionality 

  • Radicic, D., Douglas, D., Pugh, G. and Jackson, I. (2018). Cooperation for innovation and its impact on technological and non-technological innovations: empirical evidence for European SMEs in traditional manufacturing industries, International Journal of Innovation Management. Accepted 07-09-2018. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919619500464

Abstract.

Drawing on a sample of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in traditional manufacturing industries from seven EU regions, this study investigates how cooperation with external organisations affects technological (product and process) innovations and non-technological (organisational and marketing) innovations as well as the commercial success of product and process innovations (i.e., innovative sales). Our empirical strategy takes into account that all four types of innovation are potentially complementary. Empirical results suggest that cooperation increases firms’ innovativeness and yields substantial commercial benefits. In particular, increasing the number of cooperation partnerships has a positive impact on all measures of innovation performance. We conclude that a portfolio approach to cooperation enhances innovation performance and that innovation support programs should be demand-led.

From the MAPEER project:

  • Radicic, D. and Pugh, G (2016).  R&D programmes, policy mix, and the “European Paradox”: evidence from European SMEs, Science and Public Policy, 44 ( 4 ) ( 2017 ), pp. 497 – 512. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scw077. First published online: October 2, 2016.

Abstract

Using a sample of small and medium-sized enterprises from twenty-eight European countries, this study evaluates the input and output additionality of national and European Union (EU) R&D programmes both separately and in combination. Accordingly, we contribute to understanding the effectiveness of innovation policy from the perspective of policy mix. Empirical results are different for innovation inputs and outputs. For innovation inputs, we found positive treatment effects from national and EU programmes separately as well as complementary effects for firms supported from both sources relative to firms supported only by national programmes. For innovation outputs, we report no evidence of additionality from national programmes and cannot reject crowding out from EU programmes. However, crowding out from EU support is eliminated by combination with national support. These findings have policy implications for the governance of R&D policy and suggest that the European paradox—success in promoting R&D inputs but not commercialisation—is not yet mitigated.

Key words: R&D support; SMEs; policy mix; input and output additionality; European paradox

  • Radicic, D. and Pugh, G. (2017). Performance Effects of External Search Strategies in European Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management, 55, 76-114. First published on-line: Feb.15th 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12328                                      

Abstract.

There is little evidence regarding the performance impact of open innovation on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), especially across different firm-size categories and sectors. Using new survey data from 28 European countries, we specify ordered logit and generalized proportional odds models to explore how seven individual external search strategies (knowledge sources) affect SME innovation performance across different size categories and sectors. While we find some consistently positive effects, in particular from using customers as an external knowledge source, we also find that some search strategies may not be beneficial. These findings suggest managerial and policy implications.

  • Radicic, D. (2020). National and international R&D support programmes and technology scouting in European small and medium enterprises. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management 11(4), 455-482.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-10-2019-0091

Abstract

Purpose. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of national and international R&D support programmes on firms’ technology scouting, defined as firms’ use of external knowledge sources.

Design/methodology/approach. Drawing on a unique data set on R&D support programmes for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) operating in both manufacturing and service sectors across 28 European countries, this study reports treatment effects estimated by the copula-based endogenous switching model, which takes into account unobserved firm heterogeneity.

Findings. Empirical results indicate that R&D support programmes have heterogeneous effects on technology scouting. In particular, a crowding-out effect arises in the case of informal sources of external knowledge, whereas additional effects are reported for formal, strategic sources.

Practical implications. For informal sources of external knowledge, a random distribution of R&D measures would have a substantially larger effect rather than using current selection criteria.

Originality/value. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to explore the policy effects on technology scouting applying a copula-based endogenous switching model. Most cross-sectional empirical studies use matching estimators, although their main disadvantage is the selection on observables.

Key words External knowledge search; Behavioural additionality; Copula-based endogenous switching model; European SMEs; Technology

Email g.t.pugh@staffs.ac.uk or jon.fairburn@staffs.ac.uk

Part 1 of this article can be found here

Research on SME innovation especially in traditional manufacturing regions Part 1

Posted on by

By Prof Geoff Pugh and Prof Jon Fairburn

Introduction

About the projects

The two projects are the following.

  • GPrix project (November 2009 – February 2012) commissioned by the European Commission’s DG-Research. Full title: Good Practices in Innovation Support Measures for SMEs: facilitating transition from the traditional to the knowledge economy; Instrument: SP4-Capacities—CSA—Support Action; Call: FP7-SME-2009-1; Grant agreement Number: 245459. The website for this project, including aa very large number of deliverables etc., is currently available at http://business.staffs.ac.uk/gprix/en/index.htm
  • MAPEER project commissioned by the European Commission’s DG-Research. Full title: Making Progress and Economic Enhancement a Reality for SMEs. Funded under FP7-SME. Grant agreement ID: 245419. The MAPEER project website is no longer available but the results are reported in summary form on CORDIS: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/93511/factsheet/en

The two projects coordinated their questionnaire surveys to facilitate analysis and eventual publication. Together, participants at Staffordshire University contributed to seven publications arising from these datasets.

The GPrix project focused on evaluating innovation support measures for SMEs in traditional manufacturing industries. In brief, three published articles and a UNI-MERIT Working Paper arising from the project reported that:

  • the estimated effects of innovation support programs are positive, typically increasing the probability of innovation and of its commercial success;
  • although innovation support measures in the EU are mostly designed to support product innovation in R&D intensive sectors, for firms in traditional manufacturing industries a broader innovation (policy) mix is more appropriate, including support for product innovation, process innovation, marketing and organizational innovations (of particular importance), together with internationalization, design and cooperation;
  • innovation support programmes can assist SMEs in traditional manufacturing industry to consolidate and/or extend their innovation ecosystems by promoting cooperation with both private and public sector knowledge providers, suggesting that initial input and/or output additionality from public support may be propagated and amplified by behavioural and systemic effects; and
  • increasing the number of cooperation partnerships has a positive impact on all measures of innovation performance.

The MAPEER project focused on innovation support for SMEs more generally. Three articles arising from this project reported:

  • that the “European paradox” regarding SME support — i.e. success in promoting R&D inputs but not commercialisation — is not yet mitigated;
  • new evidence on “open innovation” strategies, suggesting not only some consistently positive effects, in particular from using customers as an external knowledge source, but also that some search strategies may not be beneficial;  and
  • evidence that R&D support programmes have heterogeneous effects on technology scouting – defined as firms’ use of external knowledge sources – including a crowding-out effect on informal sources of external knowledge but additionality with respect to  formal, strategic sources.

For convenience, the abstracts of all seven contributions are reproduced below

From the GPrix project:

  • Radicic, D., Pugh, G., Hollanders, H., Wintjes, J., and Fairburn, J. (2016). The impact of innovation support programs on small and medium enterprises innovation in traditional manufacturing industries: An evaluation for seven European Union regions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(8) (December): 1425-1452. First published online December 18, 2015. doi:10.1177/0263774X15621759 

Abstract

We evaluate the effect of innovation support programs on output innovation by small and medium enterprises in traditional manufacturing industry. This focus is motivated by a definition of traditional manufacturing industry that includes capacity for innovation, and by evidence of its continued importance in European Union employment. We conducted a survey in seven European Union regions to generate the data needed to estimate pre-published switching models by means of the copula approach, from which we derived treatment effects on a wide range of innovation outputs. We find that for participants the estimated effects of innovation support programs are positive, typically increasing the probability of innovation and of its commercial success by around 15%. Yet, we also find that a greater return on public investment could have been secured by supporting firms chosen at random from the population of innovating traditional sector small and medium enterprises. These findings indicate the effectiveness of innovation support programs while suggesting reform of their selection procedures.

Keywords

Small and medium enterprises, evaluation, traditional manufacturing, innovation support, innovation outputs

Abstract

Innovation support measures in the EU are mostly designed to support product innovation in R&D intensive sectors. To increase the still considerable contribution to regional employment and competitiveness from SMEs in traditional manufacturing industries a broader innovation (policy) mix is more appropriate. This paper draws data from a survey of more than 300 SMEs from seven regions within the European Union, as well as case studies, to address the question: How can innovation policy interventions be improved to support SMEs in traditional manufacturing industries more effectively? We claim that innovation support should be sensitive to the way SMEs in traditional manufacturing sectors innovate and grow. We find that product innovation (and support used for product innovation) is less likely to generate growth, than (support used for) process innovation. Also (support used for) marketing innovations and organizational innovations are of particular importance – together with internationalization, design and cooperation. The increasingly selective application procedures applied are not the most efficient to generate impact, since those who are supported (and those who are supported more frequently), are the ones who are most likely to take the same innovative steps anyhow, irrespective of policy support.

Keywords

Innovation; SMEs; traditional sectors; low-tech; policy evaluation; manufacturing; process innovation

Part 2 of this article can be found here

Email g.t.pugh@staffs.ac.uk or jon.fairburn@staffs.ac.uk

Resilience is the new normal

Posted on by

By Marzena Reska

The global pandemic has put resiliency on the agenda of every company in the world. As they cope with the seismic changes brought about by COVID-19, businesses of all sizes and types have needed to adapt to remote work, reconfigured physical workspaces, and revised logistics and supply networks. They’ve also changed operating procedures to cope with the pandemic’s risks and effects.

But what do companies do now?

The reality is that supply chain shocks are usually impossible to predict but happen with frustrating regularity. That means real value is at stake.

The promising news is that organisations can both protect against downside risks, such as pandemics, and gain substantial economic returns from increased output and productivity. 

The successful organisations  today, and in the years ahead, will redesign their operations and their supply chains to protect against a wider and more acute range of potential shocks and disruptive events. Thus, there is a need for increased visibility on both the demand and supply side.

Supply chain digitization can enable organisations to have visibility across the whole value chain—from the production of raw materials to the end customer—and better meet the needs of their customers. A bonus: it improves the agility and responsiveness of operations without increasing costs. In fact, research by the World Economic Forum, in collaboration with McKinsey, shows that companies often achieve significant and simultaneous improvements in multiple performance measures when they integrate advanced digital technologies across the value chain.

Marzena Reska
Marzena Reska

Before the coronavirus hit, most companies were already accelerating the digital transformation of their customer journeys and value chains. The expectation is digital technologies to be at the core of the new normal, enabling organisations to better meet the needs of their customers, and improving the agility and responsiveness of operations without increasing their costs. Companies often achieve significant and simultaneous improvements across multiple performance measures when they integrate advanced digital technologies across the value chain. This  also allows them to build  resilience which is an internal trait, but the disciplines and strategies that support it can also have a far wider reach.

During the crisis, many businesses have been able to overcome staff shortages by automating processes or developing self-service systems for customers. These approaches can accelerate workflows and reduce errors—and customers often prefer them. 

Digital approaches can transform customer experience and significantly boost enterprise value when applied end to end.

Also, technology-enabled methodologies can significantly accelerate cost-transparency work, compressing months of effort into weeks or days. These digital approaches include procurement-spending analysis and clean-sheeting, end-to-end inventory rebalancing, and capital-spend diagnostics and portfolio rationalization.  However, the businesses will need to be smart and careful in their approach. Leading organisations are adopting increasingly sophisticated techniques in their strategic planning, assessing each resource and opportunity very carefully as the environment changes and new data emerge.

Now, with the likelihood of prolonged uncertainty over supply, demand, and the availability of resources COVID-19  represents the trigger for operations functions to adopt an agile approach to transformation.

Useful articles

‘’Risk, Resilience, and rebalancing in global value chains’’, (2020), S. Lund; J. Manyika; J. Wotzel, E. Barribal; B. Krishnan; A. Knut; M.

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/coronavirus-leading-through-the-crisis

Where will we work post-Covid?

Posted on by

by Vanessa Oakes,Course Director

As we move through the Government’s Roadmap to ‘normality’ over the next few months, employers will be starting to consider what this may mean for staff returning to office environments. Many staff who have been able to work from home throughout the pandemic have reported increased productivity, better work life balance, saving time and money through the elimination of the commute, as well as many other benefits.

There have been some drawbacks, particularly where staff have had to juggle home-schooling and caring responsibilities, but as these staff become able to return to a normal working routine, it is likely that they will start to experience some of the same benefits as their colleagues

A recent YouGov survey showed that 91% of respondents surveyed who have been able to work from home during the pandemic, want to continue to do so at least some of the time. This pressure from employees (who have proved that they can successfully work from home), should be a catalyst for most organisations to make changes to the levels of flexibility they will allow. If organisations choose not to offer greater levels of flexibility in WHERE staff work, they may see their employees move to a competitor who IS willing this. More and more frequently ‘working from home’ can be found on job advertisements for professionals, allowing these organisations to take advantage of the changing demands of employees, and  opening their vacancies to a much wider talent pool, giving them more choice in their chosen candidate.

Of course, organisations in some sectors have always been prepared to offer high levels of flexibility of working hours and location and have found the transition to working from home a case of ‘business as usual’. At least a third of the workforce pre-Covid had some access to homeworking, but anecdotes suggest remote working was reserved for management, those who were highly valued or those who had sympathetic managers.

What the ‘mass working from home experiment’ over the last year has taught us is that everyone in our organisations can benefit from a level of flexibility, and the organisation will benefit in return through higher levels of engagement and commitment. Consider another benefit to increasing flexibility, the ability to truly open vacancies to more diverse candidates, from those with disabilities for whom homeworking would be much easier, to increasing the number of women in the workforce (and in senior roles) through allowing more flexibility around WHEN the work can be done.

Vanessa Oakes
Vanessa Oakes

One of the main challenges to remote working has been around managing (or monitoring) performance. This link between presence and performance has been prevalent in sectors where a judgement about performance is not based on measurable KPIs, rather about the complexity of work and behaviours demonstrated in performing it. This could provide challenges to organisations who are willing to improve the flexibility which they offer. This raises a series of questions for managers and leaders:

  • What does ‘good’ work look like? This will be a question that needs to be answered by each manager as they attempt to define what their performance expectations are within the new parameters of work.
  • Are managers communicating their expectations clearly enough?
  • Are they making themselves available, but not inserting themselves unnecessarily into the working day of their teams?
  • And most importantly, are they developing relationships built on trust with each of their team members? It is these relationships that will determine the success of the flexible working strategy and will allow the organisation to take advantage of the many financial and intangible benefits of a flexible workforce for the foreseeable future.

We are now recruiting for cohort 5 of the Small Business Leadership Programme (free and starting 30th March) and Vanessa will be covering this topic in more depth on this course.

Vanessa Oakes on linkedin,Email Vanessa.Oakes@staffs.ac.uk

Major new development – The Goods Yard, Stoke on Trent

Posted on by

By Jon Fairburn

It’s really great to see a developer with a good reputation working for the first time in the city. Let’s hope this also encourages more developers to look at other sites in the city.

The plans will see the redevelopment of the Swift House site, which is owned by the council, transformed into The Goods Yard, with

  • 180 new homes,
  • a 150 bed hotel,
  • 25,000 sq ft of workspaces
  • 10,000 sq ft of retail and leisure space

Personally, I’m very happy that we will have have quality accommodation right next to the University for all the visitors, students and guests that work with us. People will be able to walk straight out of the train station drop their bags at the hotel and then join us on campus. This ties in well with a new project by Paul Barratt and Prof Ruth Swetnam on the 15 minute campus to encourage less carbon intensive travel.

The addition of new workspaces hopefully targeting start-ups, creatives and digital businesses may also be one way to help keep graduates in the area and ties in well with the development of the Enterprise Zone on College Road.

Capital & Centric, who featured heavily in the BBC Two series Manctopia, are one of the UK’s most creative and active developers. They have worked on several award-winning projects in the North West, particularly Manchester and Liverpool, but this is the first time they have come down as far ‘south’ as Stoke-on-Trent, so it’s a real coup for the city.

The plan will see the present building demolished but its secret vaulted basement, which historically served as a goods yard and interchange between the railway and the canal, will be reimagined and opened up to the public as a workspace and leisure venue – possibly a waterside restaurant/bar.

I remember visiting this a few years ago when the GIS team used to work in the building. Good example of a hidden gem of Stoke on Trent.
I remember visiting this a few years ago when the GIS team used to work in the building. Good example of a hidden gem of Stoke on Trent.

There will be a new outdoor public space that links The Goods Yard to the train station, canal and wider area, and there’s even an ambition to create a water-taxi to Stoke City’s bet365 Stadium just one mile away. Located next to Stoke-on-Trent train station, and on the doorstep of Staffordshire University, the Trent and Mersey Canal and the A500, the site is in an ideal location for commuters, students, visitors and businesses.

Waiting to be transformed
Waiting to be transformed

The current ugly exterior will not be missed

Digital impression of what the cite could look like when finished
Digital impression of what the site could look like when finished

So a promising start to 2021 and I can’t wait to see the project develop.

UPDATE – A 1 hour presentation by Abi Brown and the developer is here

Jon Fairburn, Professor of Sustainable Development

You can follow me here on twitter @ProfJonFairburn

Innovation to survive and thrive Part 2

Posted on by

By Tanya Hemphill

Part 1 of Tanya’s article can be found here

STAGE TWO

Once you have used these initial basic filters to find the strongest ideas, the next stage is to use a more in-depth filter to make decisions on the remaining ideas. Day (2007) recommends using a risk matrix. The R-W-W matrix is based to three key questions:

  • Is it Real?
  • Can we Win?
  • Is it Worth doing?

This is expanded into the following set of questions:


Is it
real?
Is the market real? 		Is there a need or desire
for the product?
Can the customer buy it?
Is the size of the
potential market
adequate?
Will the customer buy the
product?

Is the product real? 		Is there a clear concept?
Can the product be made?
Will the final product satisfy
the market?

Can we
win?
Can the product be
competitive?
Does it have a competitive
advantage?
Can the advantage be
sustainable?
How will competitors
respond?

Can our company be
competitive?
Do we have superior
resources?
Do we have appropriate
management?
Can we understand and
respond to the market?

Is it worth doing?
Will the product be
profitable at an
acceptable risk?
Are forecasted returns
greater than costs?
Are the risks acceptable?

Does launching the product
make strategic sense?
Does the product fit our
overall growth strategy?
Will top management
support it?

STAGE THREE

Once a few viable marketing innovation ideas remain, the next stage is to consider the risks even further. This is where conducting a pre-mortem is a useful tool. This helps organisations identify the possible failures of a project before they happen and mitigate risk by pre-planning so that those failures don’t occur.

The following pre-mortem exercise has been adapted from Gray et al. (2010).

Activity
Step 1Imagine we are two years in the future.
Things have gone completely wrong.
What could have caused this? Generate a list of all the reassons failure occurred.

Step 2List all concerns and rank them to
deterimine priority
Step 3Address the 2 or 3 items of greatest
concern and list what actions you would
need to take to stop the issues
happening.

The list of risks and actions that need to be taken to mitigate the risk can be used as Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for an innovation or project launch.

Hopefully, this article has helped you think about the different types of innovation you can potentially pursue and how to evaluate the best route forward, using a systematic filtering process.

STOP PRESS -We are now recruting for cohort 5 of the Small Business Leadership Programme (free starts 30th March)

References

Day, G. (2007) Is it real? Can we win? Is it worth doing? Managing Risk and Reward in an Innovation Portfolio. [Online] Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2007/12/is-it-real-can-we-win-is-it-worth-doing-managing-risk-and-reward-in-an-innovation-portfolio (Accessed 11 February 2021).

Fisk, P. (2017). Gamechangers: Are you ready to change the World? Creating Innovative Strategies for Business and Brands. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Gower, L. (2015) The Innovation Workout. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Gray, D., Brown, S. & Macanufo, J. (2010) Game Storming: A Playbook for Inovators, Rulebreakers, an Changemakers. Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media, Inc.

Keeley, L., Pikkel, R., Quinn, B. and Walters, H. (2013). Ten Types of Innovation: The Discipline of Building Breakthroughs. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers and Challengers. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Free Small Business Leadership Programme – starts end of March

Posted on by

Supporting SME leaders to create resilience and manage uncertainty in 2021 and beyond

Access free ideas, guidance, peer & 121 support to help your business to manage the uncertainty of steering through the pandemic and impacts of Brexit for up to TWO leaders in your business.

Staffordshire Business School is supporting regional business by delivering free training in leadership and management to provide exactly what business needs most to build a resilient future.

This is cohort 5 of the SBLP and the positive impacts of previous cohorts are being felt across the region. Here is what Rhys from XP VR thought of the course

Why choose to be part of the Small Business Leadership Programme?
▪ Make your business more resilient
▪ Boost business performance and growth
▪ Create an innovative and agile organisation
▪ Recover from the impact of COVID-19
▪ Find solutions to the impact of Brexit
▪ Build leadership skills, confidence and effectiveness
▪ Plan for a solid future for your business
▪ Build lasting relationships with small business leaders
▪ Improve risk management and efficiency

When does the course start?
Tuesday the 30th March 2021 (1st webinar at 3pm)

If you would like to have a chat about the course then please email one of our experienced Entrepreneurs in Residence with your phone number and they will call you back,

Jane Pallister – Jane.Pallister@staffs.ac.uk
Emily Whitehead – emily@staffs.ac.uk
Jonathan Westlake – j.c.westlake@staffs.ac.uk

Here’s what another business thought of the course: Geoff Barton, General Manager of Canalside Farm in Great Haywood near Stafford said: “It’s allowed me to connect with other businesses, and I’ve learned much and managed to strengthen a few knowledge gaps and boost my handling of the business during these unique times.”

What’s involved?
Eligibility requirements
▪ Your business must be a Small or Medium-sized Enterprise (SME) based in England.
▪ Your business needs to employ between 5 and 249 people and have been operational for at least one year
▪ The participant should be a decision maker or member of the senior management team within the business with at least one person reporting directly to them.
▪ The participant must be able to commit to attending the full programme


Time commitment
The programme is designed to be manageable alongside full-time work and furloughed staff can join the programme.

Participants will attend 8×90- minute webinars across ten weeks, and complete up to 2 hours of independent development and peer-supported engagement per week.

Places are fully funded by the Government to support the resilience,
recovery and growth of SMEs during and after COVID-19. The programme
is completely free to attend but places are strictly limited.

Register Now
There are two ways to register.

  1. Email one of the Entrepreneurs in Residence as listed above and they
    will talk you through the process.
  2. Follow the simple instructions below (this takes 3 minutes) and we will
    be in touch:
    • Go to https://smallbusinesscharter.org/sblp-registration/
    • Choose ‘West Midlands’ from the pink vertical menu on the left
    • Scroll through the list of centres until you find Staffordshire University
    (start date 30th march) & click register

PLEASE NOTE: Your business can send up to two eligible delegates to this programme and delegates can be furloughed. Please do one registration for each person.

Innovation to Survive & Thrive: Part 1

Posted on by

By Tanya Hemphill, Senior Lecturer

Over the last few months we have been running a module on ‘Innovation, Value and Markets’ to over 70 Staffordshire business people, as part of our Small Business Leadership Programme.

During the workshops it was very clear that most small businesses have had to rethink their business model to adapt to massive shifts in consumer behaviour (and supply chains) because of Covid. The UK Government defines innovation as: The successful exploitation of new ideas. Innovation may involve an organisation’s:

  • Products and services
  • Processes (e.g. exploiting new technologies)
  • Business model (e.g. new income sources/ improved supply chain)

 Business Model Innovation

According to Fisk (2021) although there are an infinite number of potential business models some of the most common formats (applicable to nearly every type of business) are:

  • Advertising-based models. Services are free to users, whilst advertisers pay to engage with the audience attracted, e.g. Google, Facebook.
  • Razor-and-blades models. The facilitating item, like a razor, is sold cheaply, then accessories, like blades, at a premium, e.g. HP, Nespresso.
  • Added-value models. The facilitating item, like an iPad, is sold at a premium, then accessories, like apps, sold cheaply, e.g. Apple.
  • One-of-one models. The company donates a product to a charity, or person in need, for every product sold, e.g. Toms, Warby Parker.
  • Cashflow models. High volumes are generated at low margins, payments received quickly from customers, paid slowly to suppliers, e.g. Amazon, Dell.
  • Platform-based models. These bring buyers and suppliers together, typically charging both of them to connect and transact, e.g. Airbnb, Uber.
  • Subscription-based models. These charge a regular, e.g. monthly, fee for unlimited use of a product or service, e.g. Netflix, Zipcar.
  • Freemium models. These encourage trial or a basic level of usage for free, but charge for additional or premium options, e.g. Spotify, Fornite.
  • Direct to consumer models. Products which in the past would have been sold through intermediaries are sold direct, e.g. Allbirds, Casper.

 

10 Types of Innovation

If we want to expand the UK Government’s three categories of innovation, recent research has identified ten main types of innovation (Keeley et al., 2013):

  1. Profit Model: The way you make money (e.g. Netflix changed the video rental industry by implementing a subscription model)
  2. Network: Connections with others to create value (e.g. Target works with renowned designers to differentiate itself)
  3. Structure: Alignment of your talent assets (e.g. Whole Foods has built a robust feedback system for internal teams)
  4. Process: Signature of superior methods for doing your work (e.g. Zara’s ‘fast fashion’ strategy moves its clothing from sketch to shelf in record time)
  5. Product Performance: Distinguishing features and functionality (e.g. OXO Good Grips costs a premium but its ‘universal design’ has a loyal following)
  6. Product System: Complementary products and services (e.g. Nike+ partnered shoes, sensors, apps and devices into a sport lifestyle suite)
  7. Service: Support and enhancements that surround your offerings (e.g. Zappos “deliver WOW through service” is their #1 internal core value)
  8. Channel: How your offerings are delivered to customers and users (e.g. Nespresso locks in customers with its useful members only club)
  9. Brand: Representation of your offerings and business (e.g. Virgin extends its brand into sectors ranging from soft drinks to space travel)
  10. Customer Engagement: Distinctive interactions you foster (e.g. Wii’s experience draws more from the interactions in the room than from on-screen)

This framework is expanded further by list of possible tactics, which can be found here: https://doblin.com/dist/images/uploads/TenTypesInnovation.pdf

The ‘Business Model Canvas’ is one of the most used templates in business to map a business model (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). This is a useful tool for rethinking the whole business, seeing connections and then innovating the business.

You can download a copy of the Business Model Canvas and view an overview video of the tool at https://www.strategyzer.com/canvas/business-model-canvas

Sign up to the next cohort of the Small Business Leadership Programme here – starts 30th March

References

Fisk, P. (2017). Gamechangers: Are you ready to change the World? Creating Innovative Strategies for Business and Brands. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Keeley, L., Pikkel, R., Quinn, B. and Walters, H. (2013). Ten Types of Innovation: The Discipline of Building Breakthroughs. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers and Challengers. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Author

Tanya Hemphill can be found on twitter @DigitalTanya she has recently joined Staffordshire Business School. She teaches on the MSc in Digital Marketing Management which includes a credited workplacement.

Tanya Hemphill
Tanya Hemphill

Part 2 of this article will shortly be available