Innovation Climate Questionnaire

Live Report

03-Sep-2010 7:06:07 AM

There are a total of 386 responses FROM 30-Dec-2004 to 22-Jul-2010.

1. Employees are more effectively empowered if they are given a clear vision of the future and where the company is trying to go. The need for innovation is then apparent to them, and they know how to direct their efforts.
   
   Check the statements that are more true than false in your organization:

   	Percent	Count	Answers
   	56.6%	209/369	Our organizational vision and strategies are clear to me.
   	37.4%	138/369	The vision and strategies often help me in setting priorities.
   	29.3%	108/369	My boss has created a reasonably clear vision and strategy for our area.
   	28.2%	104/369	Little effort has been made to clarify what the vision and strategy mean to us in this area.
   	27.1%	100/369	Our organization's announced visions and strategies inspire me.
   	26.6%	98/369	The vision and strategies would work if applied, but management decisions don't fit with them.
   	24.9%	92/369	Strategies are changed so often that no one at my level pays much attention to them.

   
   
   

2. Both innovation and organizational learning require trying new things, seeing what happens, and learning from the experience. When those trying new ideas are punished for "mistakes," two things go wrong: (1) people stop experimenting, and (2) mistakes are covered up, so no organizational learning results.
   
   Check the statements that are more true than false in your organization:

   	Percent	Count	Answers
   	46.9%	169/360	Honest and original mistakes are recognized as an indication of initiative and courage.
   	35.3%	127/360	Good management of projects involving risk and unpredictability is highly valued, even when things don't turn out according to plan.
   	28.1%	101/360	New ventures are held to the same standards of predictability as well-established businesses.
   	27.8%	100/360	Experiments are OK in the lab, but not in the marketplace.
   	24.2%	87/360	People who make mistakes are encouraged to share them widely so that others can learn.
   	19.2%	69/360	Even minor mistakes are punished.

   
   
   

3. Intrapreneurs are employees who behave like entrepreneurs on behalf of the company. They are persistent visionaries who act courageously to turn ideas into profitable realities. They become the hands-on leaders of specific innovations within an organization. Intrapreneurs are an essential ingredient in every successful innovation process.
   In your experience, how does your organization respond to intrapreneurs?
   
   Check the statements that are more true than false in your organization:

   	Percent	Count	Answers
   	47.2%	168/356	Effective intrapreneurs are generally rewarded.
   	32.6%	116/356	We so frustrate people who have the intrapreneurial spirit that most of them leave within their first five years.
   	28.7%	102/356	Even after success, the first conspicuous failure is a career-limiting event.
   	27.8%	99/356	Many of our general managers, business unit managers, and directors have a prior history of intrapreneurial success.
   	24.7%	88/356	I can think of a number of intrapreneurs who have survived and prospered at our organization.
   	13.8%	49/356	Even when the business results are good, the bold behaviors that lead to intrapreneurial success are punished.

   
   
   

4. Sponsors are people with power or influence who support, coach, protect, and find resources for an intrapreneurial project and its team.
   
   What percentage of your organization's managers have the skills, power, commitment, and courage to be effective sponsors of intrapreneurial initiatives?

   List index out of bounds (-6)
   
   

5. Innovative organizations create cross-disciplinary project teams to implement innovation, and they empower them to make decisions. For example, a new product team might-at a minimum-include people from marketing, engineering, and manufacturing.
   
   Check the statements that are more true than false in your organization:

   	Percent	Count	Answers
   	36.5%	131/359	Cross-functional team members come as "ambassadors" from their functional organizations-they negotiate with teammates, but functional bosses who are not part of the team generally make the real decisions.
   	32.6%	117/359	We use teams effectively within functions, but we don't have many effective cross-functional teams or cross-business-unit teams.
   	30.4%	109/359	We are using cross-functional teams well.
   	29.8%	107/359	We have some effective teams, but most so-called "teams" are really a bunch of individuals with rather different visions of where the project is going.
   	28.7%	103/359	Project teams in our organization have considerable freedom to make decisions and act on them without needing to ask for permission.
   	26.7%	96/359	Project teams have considerable choice in recruiting and selecting new team members.
   	23.7%	85/359	We rarely use teams effectively; bosses assign work to individuals, not to teams.

   
   
   

6. Some organizations push most decisions up to a level way above the doers. Such organizations are not good at implementing innovation.
   
   What percentage of your time is spent getting or waiting for permission to act rather than taking action or gathering information so that you and your team can make your own decisions?

   	Percent	Count	Answers
   	16.1%	59/366	0-10%
   	29.5%	108/366	11-25%
   	17.5%	64/366	26-40%
   	15.8%	58/366	41-65%
   	17.2%	63/366	66-85%
   	3.8%	14/366	86-100%
   	100.0%	366/366	Summary

   
   
   

7. New ideas and hunches require exploration before their value can be demonstrated to others. Innovative organizations give people the freedom to use some of their time to explore new ideas and hunches without having to ask permission.
   
   What percentage of your time at work can you safely divert from your assigned tasks to explore new ideas you believe have promise?

   	Percent	Count	Answers
   	13.9%	51/367	0-2%
   	23.7%	87/367	3-5%
   	25.6%	94/367	6-10%
   	18.8%	69/367	11-20%
   	12.8%	47/367	21-40%
   	5.2%	19/367	41-100%
   	100.0%	367/367	Summary

   
   
   

8. What an organization becomes depends in part on how far ahead it looks. Innovation is more likely to occur when people are thinking well into the future.
   
   In talking with me, my boss's attention rarely extends beyond

   	Percent	Count	Answers
   	7.4%	27/367	The next day
   	15.5%	57/367	The next week
   	26.7%	98/367	The next month
   	31.1%	114/367	The next year
   	16.9%	62/367	The next five years
   	2.5%	9/367	The next twenty-five years
   	100.0%	367/367	Summary

   
   
   

9. Intrapreneurs appoint themselves to their role and then seek the corporation's blessing for their task. Intrapreneurial team members are recruited rather than told to join the team. Despite this, some corporations still appoint people to carry out innovations.
   
   Check the statements that are more true than false in your organization:

   	Percent	Count	Answers
   	39.9%	142/356	Team members are appointed on the basis of availability, not interest, compatibility, or passion for the idea.
   	37.1%	132/356	Most people leading innovation projects are appointed without much concern for whether they are passionate about the idea.
   	31.2%	111/356	If someone wants to join an intrapreneurial team and the team wants him or her, he or she is generally allowed to do so.
   	30.9%	110/356	It is often very difficult to get permission to leave one's current assignment to join an intrapreneurial team.
   	30.3%	108/356	Most people leading innovation projects are self-selected intrapreneurs.
   	26.7%	95/356	Team members are recruited by the team leader and may choose whether to join.
   	24.4%	87/356	Individuals have considerable influence on the selection of the teams and projects on which they serve.

   
   
   

10. The knowledge generated by an intrapreneurial project is stored in its people. Despite this, when an intrapreneurial project becomes successful, corporations often take it from those who created that success and give it to "professional managers." In general, each early-stage hand-off has a 90 percent chance of killing the project.
    
    Check the statements that are more true than false in your organization:

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	41.4%	144/348	Intrapreneurial leaders and at least half the core team frequently stay with the project from near the beginning to full implementation.
    	30.5%	106/348	In theory, we honor the right of intrapreneurs to manage the projects they have created, but in practice, once they succeed, other managers generally take over.
    	26.4%	92/348	People come and go in development teams, but there is always a good overlap of project old-timers who maintain memory of the team's past learning.
    	25.9%	90/348	We get good team continuity up through the launch of a new product, but around that time, the team often moves on and new people take over.
    	25.9%	90/348	Intrapreneurs and key team members are frequently transferred to other assignments.
    	19.8%	69/348	Our development process includes a series of planned hand-offs from stage to stage.

    
    
    

11. New ideas generally don't fit the existing organizational pattern. Therefore innovators have to cross boundaries to get help and support. But bureaucratic managers often say no to people from outside their area, just to demonstrate that they are in control.
    
    What percentage of your time and resources is spent helping people outside your area in ways that are not part of your assigned responsibilities?

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	13.7%	50/365	0-2%
    	21.1%	77/365	3-7%
    	30.1%	110/365	8-15%
    	18.6%	68/365	16-30%
    	11.0%	40/365	31-50%
    	5.5%	20/365	51-100%
    	100.0%	365/365	Summary

    
    
    

12. In companies with a strong organizational community, people take care of each other and help each other out. They think in terms of the good of the whole rather than just the agenda of their area. Organizational community provides a base of support for innovators and a force to direct freedom toward worthwhile ends.
    
    Check the statements that are more true than false in your organization:

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	53.8%	196/364	Many of us are proud to be part of this company.
    	43.7%	159/364	People feel a strong desire to make contributions to this company and to the people in it.
    	40.7%	148/364	There are people in the company who always lend a hand, and we honor them regardless of their rank.
    	32.7%	119/364	I feel a sense of community with my unit or function, but not with the company as a whole.
    	29.7%	108/364	People here feel a strong sense of membership and mutual support.
    	28.6%	104/364	People are very cynical about the company as a whole and are guided by selfish concerns, including concerns for their immediate area.
    	25.0%	91/364	When I ask for help in some other part of the company, people there generally say they're too busy.
    	20.6%	75/364	I don't trust this company or the people in it to support me in times of trouble.

    
    
    

13. Refocusing on how to better serve customers drives organizations toward productive innovation. Focus on internal politics tends toward conservatism, mistargeted megaprojects, and failure to exploit genuinely superior technology.
    
    When decisions are made in your organization, what percentage of the criteria (implicit or explicit) relates to understanding and better meeting customers' or users' needs, as opposed to satisfying internal politics and defending turf?

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	8.0%	29/363	0-5%
    	15.2%	55/363	6-20%
    	20.1%	73/363	21-35%
    	22.0%	80/363	36-65%
    	23.1%	84/363	66-85%
    	11.6%	42/363	86-100%
    	100.0%	363/363	Summary

    
    
    

14. When an intrapreneur faces many internal monopolies for essential services and permissions, the chances are that any truly novel project will be stopped. The most innovative companies provide more than one place to go for most things, so intrapreneurs can "wire around" people who are blocking them.
    
    Check the statements that are more true than false in your organization:

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	39.4%	138/350	There are many internal monopolies in our company; this causes complacency and forces us to use internal service providers that are not up to the highest standards.
    	39.1%	137/350	If we can't get "what we need when we need it" from inside suppliers, we are generally able to go outside to get it.
    	29.1%	102/350	Choice exists in the informal systems of our organization, but the formal systems are biased toward internal monopolies.
    	27.7%	97/350	Teams often have a choice among several internal suppliers of services such as IS, training, sales, manufacturing, and software engineering.
    	19.4%	68/350	A team with a new product or service will be told what sales force to use, even if the assigned salespeople are not really interested in selling the new offering.

    
    
    

15. Innovation is frequently discouraged by the way performance is measured. The most innovative organizations develop measurements that encourage innovation.
    
    In what areas do the current measurement systems of your organization do more to encourage than to discourage innovation?

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	58.9%	201/341	Process innovation.
    	47.5%	162/341	Incremental innovation.
    	37.0%	126/341	Product innovation.
    	36.7%	125/341	Marketing and sales innovation.
    	33.1%	113/341	Technical invention.
    	23.5%	80/341	Support group innovation.
    	22.3%	76/341	Breakthrough innovation.

    
    
    

16. Information is useful to an organization only if the people doing the work and making the decisions have it. In the most innovative organizations, information flows freely, both horizontally and vertically.
    
    Check the statements that are more true than false in your organization:

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	41.3%	148/358	We hit a good balance between truthfulness and tact.
    	37.2%	133/358	The truth is hidden; people say what bosses want to hear.
    	35.5%	127/358	We share information about customers freely across organizational boundaries.
    	34.4%	123/358	We share information about technology freely across the boundaries of the organization.
    	32.1%	115/358	Information is closely guarded as a political resource.
    	29.9%	107/358	People here tell the truth, even if it is painful or not what someone wants to hear.
    	22.1%	79/358	At least once a month, we get detailed financial reports on our business.
    	13.1%	47/358	Fear of leaks to competitors keeps us from sharing information with others in the company who might need it.

    
    
    

17. Companies that treat employees well gain a competitive advantage: employees are more loyal, and they have a greater sense of safety, which gives them the courage to innovate. When you observe managers of this organization making decisions, what do you see?
    
    Check the items that are more rather than less characteristic of your organization:

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	42.3%	153/362	Concern for people as long as there is little cost attached?
    	41.2%	149/362	A tendency to see all people as people, not as cogs in the machine?
    	38.1%	138/362	Real respect for others, even when they are of lower status in the organization?
    	37.8%	137/362	Genuine concern for employees, backed up by supportive actions?
    	25.7%	93/362	Willingness to take a short-term earnings hit to protect employees' jobs?
    	24.0%	87/362	Indifference to the effect of decisions on people's lives?
    	6.9%	25/362	Rewards for brutality and intimidation?

    
    
    

18. Companies with a strong commitment to serving society's needs-to social, environmental, and ethical responsibility-often anticipate external changes and out-innovate their competitors. In addition, they attract a better type of employee, with greater commitment to serving customers and improving the world.
    
    Check the statements that are more true than false in your organization:

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	50.3%	179/356	When making decisions, we take social and environmental issues very seriously.
    	46.3%	165/356	We have a written commitment to ethical priorities beyond what is required by law.
    	35.4%	126/356	We obey the law in environmental and social issues, but don't work very hard at going beyond what the law requires.
    	12.9%	46/356	We are sometimes lax in meeting the requirements of social and environmental laws.
    	10.7%	38/356	We laugh at anyone who talks about ethical responsibilities beyond compliance.

    
    
    

19. Many organizations value only those innovations that can be confidently projected to add at least 5-10 percent to the bottom line within a few years. For huge companies, such opportunities are rare; aiming for them usually results in very costly failure. The better way to growth involves numerous smaller bets, many of which succeed modestly and some of which open the door to huge opportunities in which you have a commanding advantage. Then you may prudently invest for the "home run."
    
    Check the statements that are more true than false in your organization.

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	41.3%	147/356	Innovation is managed centrally to make sure we invest only in things with the highest potential.
    	40.4%	144/356	We are good at trying things on a small scale to find out what works.
    	29.8%	106/356	Once something is shown to work on a small scale, we are good at scaling up quickly.
    	27.2%	97/356	We are good at managing many small businesses in a decentralized way, so we have many small beginnings in many different places.
    	22.2%	79/356	Our desire to promise "big results" fast causes many managers to make mistakes on a larger scale than necessary.
    	20.8%	74/356	Small beginnings are out of favor. We only want home runs.

    
    
    

20. In your experience of your organization, what do you think has been most supportive of innovation?

    • good. commitment has been more supportive
    • Aligning the innovation with the department's vision.
    • Our leaders
    • The hard science, R&D component.
    • The fact that every employee is treated as an asset to the organization and that there's a very informal atmosphere, even towards CEO's
    • cross teams
    • /
    • The occasional new mid-level manager who isn't yet aware of the power of the bureaucracy to prevent improvements in efficiency and effectiveness.
    • The way that the company tyrs to get everyones in put about different things
    • Line managers
    • ideas are allowed to be freely executed
    • Vint
    • Strong focus on internal knowledge sharing and education
    • the boss
    • yes
    • Freedom to pursue innovative ideas.
    • customer demands and new requirements due to the new business model that we have created
    • Cross function teams
    • People can be theirself and learn a lot about different subjects
    • People can be theirself and learn a lot about different subjects
    • money is not realy an issue
    • The team environment.
    • Alignment of vision & strategies throughout entire organization.
    • New Processes
    • Few topics in management are more important than decision-making. Everything a manager does – whether planning, organizing, directing or controlling – involves making decisions. A strong argument can be made that it is only through the quality of his/her decisions that the manager can add any value to the organization. There are several factors that contribute to the quality of decisions made by the manager. Perhaps the first is the decision-making ‘style’ of the manager.
      
      
      
      Management Decision-Making Styles
      1. Individual (or autocratic)
      
      2. Consultative
      
      3. Group
      
      
      
      The individual (or autocratic) style, as the name suggests – consists of the manager collecting relevant information and unilaterally making a decision from the data he/she collects…without seeking input or advice from others. The consultative style, as the name suggests, consists of the manager consulting with others – both in gathering information and in reaching conclusions as to the best course of action. There is a very wide range of consultative styles. The manager may consult with a few trusted advisors only or may consult with a wide range of employees to be impacted by a particular decision. In either case, the manager is still responsible for making the decision – but does so only after ‘sounding out’ the various advisors. It should be noted that a strong leader may or may not accept the advice received – but can elect to follow what he or she feels is the ‘best course of action’ even if this course is favored only by a minority of advisors. This is treacherous ground – this practice should be followed cautiously – but is, in fact, sometimes appropriate.
      
      
      
      The final decision-making ‘style’ is ‘group decision-making’. Here the manager actually turns the decision over to the group. The role of the manager is to explain the problem or issue, to establish parameters and guidelines, and to act as a resource. But the decision is actually left up to the group involved. This is the highest form of participative management.
      
      
      
      Which style is best? As in so much of management (and life), this depends. Each of the three styles is superior under certain conditions – and a poor choice under different conditions. The task of the manager, then, is to understand the conditions and to select the appropriate decision making style (or approach) carefully.
      
      
      
      In general, there are three key factors to consider when deciding which style (or approach) is preferable:
      
      
      
      Factors to Consider in Selecting a Decision Making Style (Approach)
      
      1. Available Time
      
      2. Demand for Accuracy
      
      3. Demand for Acceptance
      
      When time is of the essence, this leads the manager to use the ‘individual’ decision making approach - speed being one of its key advantages. Even when the manager might have preferred another approach – time sometimes dictates an autocratic style. This should not, however, become a common practice (letting time drive the decision making approach). If managers are constantly dealing with ‘crises’ this is an indication of a deeper problem – poor planning and delegation of authority to deal with issues before they become crises.
      
      
      
      The individual decision making style is also appropriate when the manager has the available information, understand the problem well, and is responsible. Here, the manager should shoulder the responsibility and make the best decision he or she can – rather than seeking an ‘outsider’ that will not have enough information or won’t be held ultimately responsible.
      
      
      
      In a related fashion, where the decision calls for a high level of accuracy – and the manager does not have enough information – or doesn’t know how to process the information – the consultative style is preferred. The manager is still responsible for the decision – but is frequently wise to enlist the help of others in arriving at a sound decision. This is an ‘elaboration’ of the ‘two heads are better than one’ concept – and is a desirable course of action for managers in a majority of situations.
      
      
      
      Finally, there are frequently occasions where time is not critical, accuracy isn’t critical (where there are a number of ‘acceptable’ solutions) but acceptance is important. Frequently, the employees who are impacted by a decision or who have to carry out a decision will need to support the decision. Here it is usually wise to allow them to participate in the decision. This is accomplished best through the ‘group decision making’ approach. As mentioned previously, of the three ‘styles’ or approaches, the consultative is more frequently appropriate – and the one I would recommend as the primary style for most managers.
      
      
      
      The decision-making style or approach is not the only factor in determining the quality of a decision, however. Even more important – and significantly so – is the ability to correctly define the problem. Too many times we don’t separate symptoms (what we hear and see) from the underlying problem (which causes the symptoms). The ability to correctly define the problem is truly at the very heart of effective decision-making/problem solving. [Note: sometimes decisions don’t deal with problems per se – but with defining goals or direction. Even then, it is the ability to understand which direction we need to go – and why – that lays the groundwork for improved decision-making.]
      
      
      
      Decision-Making/Problem-Solving has been defined as a ‘rational’ process. Below are the steps in the rational decision-making/problem-solving process:
      
      
      
      
      
      
      Steps in the Rational Problem-Solving/Decision-Making Process
      1. Correctly defining the problem (or the goal/direction)
      
      2. Developing alternatives
      
      3. Evaluating alternatives
      
      4. Select and Implement choice
      
      5. Follow-up
      
      
      
      As previously mentioned, the first step is the most important (and frequently the step that is overlooked). An example may help substantiate this claim. When I introduce this topic in my regular classes, I start by having the students participate in a ‘two minute exercise’. I share with them a case scenario (from a classic case – that happens to be factual). I ask them to assume that they are the leasing agent for a large modern office building in a nearby city. As such, they lease space to various tenants – and are interested in keeping the tenants satisfied in order to maintain a strong occupancy rate. Case scenario: The building has 30 stories. It contains four passenger elevators, a freight elevator and a staircase. I point out that they assumed ownership and management of the building several months ago – and that the only problem they have incurred – is the complaints from the tenants about the ‘long wait’ in the lobbies for elevator service. Students are then asked to develop as many solutions to the problem as possible in two minutes. They are encouraged to ‘think outside the box’ – and to see how many ideas they can come up with – without worrying about evaluating whether or not the idea is ‘good’ or ‘practical’.
      
      
      
      At the end of the two-minute drill, I then ask students to read their lists – and I write the possible ‘solutions’ on the board. The typical student will identify 4 to 7 ideas in two minutes and for the class we will end up with a list of 12 – 15 separate ‘solutions’. This list will run from the obvious – convert the freight elevator and use it during peak periods, add another elevator, convert the stairs to an escalator, create an express elevator system, speed up the elevator and doors; to a little more creative ideas – stagger the work hours of tenants to spread-out elevator utilization, have elevators stop on every-other floor to cut stops in half, institute a health program and promote stair utilization between floors, etc. the more creative (or far fetched) ideas have included fire poles, bungee cords, slides, helicopter ports on top of the building, a 30 story parking deck, etc. Occasionally someone will suggest refreshments in the lobby.
      
      
      
      No one has ever arrived at the ‘solution’ suggested by the architectural consulting firm that was actually hired by the owners to recommend a solution to this problem. In a typical class where there are 12-15 potential solutions – no more than one or two would qualify as addressing the real problem (as one does above) – all others are addressing a problem that doesn’t exist.
      
      
      
      What was the ‘solution’ recommended by the consulting firm? They suggested that mirrors be placed in each lobby! The owners were somewhat taken back by this simplistic solution – and a little dubious of the merit of the solution – but did install the mirrors at a nominal cost (compared to the sizeable cost of solutions they were anticipating). What happened? Complaints dropped sharply.
      
      What can be learned from this ‘true case’? A great deal. What was the problem? Almost all of the solutions proposed by students (and anticipated by management here) address a ‘capacity problem’. The assumption being that there are too few elevators, the elevators are too slow, they are over utilized at peak, etc. The ‘real problem’ had nothing to do with ‘capacity’ – the real problem dealt more with impatience of the tenants – and the fact that there was nothing to ‘distract’ them during a relatively brief (but necessary) wait. You will note that the solution – add mirrors – is only one of dozens of possible solutions to the problem (need for a distraction).
      
      
      
      à When we correctly understand the problem – solutions are relatively easy – and more options are usually available. The key is correctly understanding the problem and not confusing the problem with symptoms.
      
      
      
      In this case – most students jump into the rational decision making model at step 2 – identifying alternatives – without really thinking through the problem. In this case it is instructive to reflect on the consequences of a ‘wrong’ decision. Assume for a moment that the owners followed through with a likely course of action (based on the incorrect definition of the existence of a capacity problem). Assume they choose to spend the several million dollars that would be required to add a new elevator. There had been four elevators. Now there would be five. Capacity has been increased by 25%. This 25% capacity increase, however is being spread over 30 floors…we cannot automatically assume the wait time would drop by 25%. In fact, it would likely drop by a substantially smaller percentage. Now – if the previous ‘wait time’ during peak periods had been 90 seconds (a seemingly long time when you are in a hurry), and the average wait time ‘plummets’ by 20% (unlikely), the average wait time will now be 72 seconds. There will be rejoicing in the lobbies! NOT! Clearly the tenants (who are likely now paying more to cover the cost of the new elevator) will not be happy. The still have to wait for well over a minute and nothing to distract them. You have solved a problem that did not exist (inadequate capacity) and the real issue – need for a distraction to make a necessary wait bearable – is still unavailable.
      
      
      
      So – if there is any lesson worth remembering – it is the importance of getting below the surface – and identifying the ‘real problem’ before beginning to develop alternatives and implementing your solution.
      
      
      
      Now that we have completed our discussion of the rational problem-solving/decision-making process – a word of caution. Most decisions – at least initially – don’t properly ‘fit’ the rational model. We want our decisions to be made ‘rationally’ – of course – but it is frequently necessary to use another approach – to ‘move the decision’ to the point where the ‘rational model’ is applicable. The following discussion of organizational decision making models will attempt to explore the way in which decision making is typically approached in organizations – and will identify the criteria by which decision models can be evaluated – so as to help managers select the appropriate approach.
      
      
      
      Organizational Decision Making Models
      1. Rational Model
      
      2. Incremental Process Model
      
      3. Carnegie Model
      
      4. Garbage Can Model
      
      
      
      The Rational Model, sometimes called the ‘scientific method’ or the ‘case method’ of decision-making, was discussed previously. This is ultimately the model we hope to use to make decisions – correctly understanding the problem or goal, identifying and evaluating alternatives, and so on. But two very important conditions are necessary before we can proceed beyond the first of this model: (1) We must understand and agree on the problem; and (2) we must have the information, expertise and/or resources necessary to address the problem/goal identified. Initially, these two conditions are rarely met.
      
      
      
      The second decision-making model is the ‘Incremental Process Model’ – sometimes called the ‘trial and error model’. As the name implies – this is an approach to decision-making that requires we take one-step at a time – making small incremental decisions – and by necessity sometimes reversing course. This is the appropriate model to use under certain conditions. The same two criteria mentioned for the ‘rational model’ are used to determine the appropriateness of the Incremental Process Model. For this model to be appropriate – (1) We must agree on the problem (or goals) being undertaken; but (2) Not know how to fix the problems, or not have sufficient resources, etc. [Note: There are always two basic questions – one: “Do we agree on the problem/goals” (yes or no); and (2) “Do we have the expertise and resources to solve the problem or reach the goal” (yes or no). The Rational Model requires a ‘yes’ to both questions. The Incremental Process Model requires a ‘yes’ to the first and a ‘no’ to the second – thus we have to use the ‘trial and error’ approach called for in the Incremental Process Model in order to find out how to solve the problem.]
      
      
      
      The Carnegie Model can be thought of as a ‘political – negotiating’ model. This model fits situations where we disagree on the problem or goal (answering ‘no’ to the first screening question); but do have the expertise and resources to address a problem/goal (thus answering ‘yes’ to the second screening questions). Most decisions that organizations face actually fit this model initially. Most organizations do have skills and resources necessary to address problems/goals – but there is usually significant disagreement about specific problems and goals of the organization. The Carnegie Model points out that before organizations can make rational decisions – they must come to some agreement about the problems facing the organization or the goals and direction of the organization. They must, in effect, negotiate until this ‘no’ (to the question of problem/direction agreement) can be turned into a ‘yes’. Once this happens – we have a ‘yes’ to both the first and second screening question – and can then (and only then) correctly apply the rational model (which is ultimately our goal).
      
      
      
      It is not uncommon in practice to reverse the Carnegie and Incremental Process Models (as decision making models or approaches)…and the results are always negative. One case in point – the Vietnam War. If you remember, there was very substantial disagreement among the public, among elected officials and even among military leaders about whether or not the U.S. should be in the war, what our goals in Southeast Asia should be, etc. Our answer to the question about ‘goal agreement’ would have been a resounding ‘No’. The second question – do we have expertise and resources to fight a war – our response would likely be ‘Yes’. This answer combination indicates that we should have made our decisions about entry into the Vietnamese War using the Carnegie Model…debate, and negotiate until a collaborative agreement is reached that the majority of constituents can agree upon, identifying specifically what the goal was, what the purpose was, etc. (rather than the very silly goal of ‘winning the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese people’ or the unnecessary goal of ‘protecting the world from communism’ (since the world will unlikely be threatened by such a weak economic system). Nevertheless, the Carnegie Model was not followed. Instead, our decision-process can only be described as ‘Incremental’. If you recall, the very first troops (advisors) were sent to Vietnam under President Eisenhower in the late 1950’s. Most Americans didn’t know where Vietnam was located, let alone what the issues were. Unfortunately, much the same could be said for Congress. But we took the first small step. Next, we committed a larger number of troops under President Kennedy, again, with little understanding of the country, the issues and the prospects. There was certainly no agreement gathering…quite the opposite. Another small, incremental step was taken into the quagmire. Next, President Johnson committed still more (500,000) troops. Disagreement became more intense. We knew how to fight but couldn’t agree on what we were fighting for strategically and the same could be said for the tactical operations during the war. There was no clear, agreed upon objective. The last (incremental) step was taken by President Nixon. We threw up our hands in symbolic futility, declared that we had accomplished our objectives (whatever they had been), and pulled out of the country. All toll, we had approximately 50,000 American casualties and an even larger number of Vietnamese casualties – in part, because our policy makers used a totally inappropriate approach to making policy decisions. The same mistake has been made throughout history – by business policy makers as well as governmental policy makers. Selection of a decision-making approach should not be done casually. It behooves management to think not just about the decision, but also about the approach by which we should reach the decision.
      
      
      
      The final decision model is called the “Garbage Can Model” of decision-making. You should think of this as the model calling for decisions to be made based on intuition, insight and inspiration. You would not deliberately choose to rely on this model – but managers should be open to it – and prepared to take advantage of opportunities that fit its parameters. The name ‘Garbage Can Model’ was derived from the fact that most organizations are somewhat like huge garbage cans – inside there are numerous problems ‘floating around’ – some of which can be solved and others of which can’t be solved directly – but must simply be avoided – shoved to the side. There are also numerous opportunities in the can – some of which will be identified and seized and others that won’t be recognized or taken advantage of. This model tends to work where there is disagreement about problems/goals and a lack of necessary expertise and resources (‘no’ and ‘no’ answers to the two screening questions) – but where there does exist innovative, insightful and intuitive managers (entrepreneurial managers) who are able to see opportunities where others simply see problems or ‘garbage’.
      
      
      
      The corporate entrepreneur is called upon to understand each of these models – to be able to recognize opportunities and find solutions when others see only ‘garbage’; to understand the need to negotiate within the organization to arrive at a consensus and commitment to particular goals and directions; the need to use a cautious trial and error (incremental) approach to difficult problems/goals; and overall, the need to move decision situations to the point where more rational processes can be used for making organizational decisions.
      
      
      
      There is one final concept that is extremely important for managers attempting to improve the quality of their decision-making. A relatively new model – known as the ‘Stakeholder Model’ has proven to be extremely useful in helping managers anticipate the consequences of their decisions (a critically important step omitted by the other models) and attempts to determine whether or not the decision creates value for the stakeholders of the organization. This model does not replace the other models – but it adds another dimension – adds another tool to the individual manager’s decision-making tool kit.
      
      
      
      The Stakeholder Model of Decision-Making
      
      
      
      The Stakeholder Model is simple yet profound. The model can be outlined as follows:
      
      
      
      Managers create value – primarily through the quality of the decisions they make – tactical or strategic.
      Managers must learn to consider the long-term consequences of their decisions – do they create or reduce long-term value.
      Managers must remember for whom they create value à the organization’s ‘Stakeholders’.
      Organizational stakeholders typically include the following groups:
      Customers
      Stockholders/owners
      Employees/other managers
      Creditors
      Suppliers
      Governmental regulatory agencies
      Community-at-large
      
      
      Managers should understand what each stakeholder group typically ‘values’ – and attempt to make decisions that result in value for as many stakeholder groups as possible.
      Managers must recognize ‘value trade-offs’ must still be positive. Some decisions create value for one group and reduce value for another. In these instances – there should be substantially more value created (overall) than destroyed – otherwise the decision is NOT a value creating decision – simply a value ‘shifting’ decision (shifting value from one stakeholder group to another).
      Anytime a decision reduces a particular stakeholder groups’ ‘value’ – the manager must anticipate the consequences (reactions by the impacted stakeholder group). Can you live with or prevent these consequences? Do the negative consequences (or unintended consequences) create more problems than the initial decision attempted to ‘solve’? These are the kinds of questions the manager must continually ask during the decision making process.
      At “the end of the day” – once all of the consequences – intended and unintended – have played out – are most of the stakeholders better off or worse off as a result of your decision? This is the real test of the quality of your decision making - and the quality of your decision making is the real test of the quality of you as a manager.
    • people who understand things
    • Our cultural principles reference performing above expecations and outperforming the competition. This performance is then handsomely rewarded.
      
      The annual innovation award contest is open to all employees regardless of function or management level. This brings out the creative side in many employees, many who are not in R&D funtions.
    • Focus on customer and overall organizational support.
    • Focus on customer and overall organizational support.
    • Our online service offerings are superior in the industry. Our technology departments are highly innovative and have been recognized by many industry web-watchers. The methods we use to channel ideas to these groups are very efficient, and well-utilized.
    • Managers who trust people, supportive and trsut
    • Managers who trust people, supportive and trsut
    • IT
    • Cross-functional teams
    • Cross-functional teams
    • Committment from management that innovation is part of our company's history and our present and our future. Everyone must be working toward greater innovation and customer satisfaction.
    • The culture of customer first in our Processing Solutions division is the most supportive of innovation. With this focus we become customer-centric, in that we build projects and initiative and new innovations around customers ideas and requests and we do this to continue our support and business we have with our customers.
    • No idea
    • ??
    • open culture
    • --
    • Do not know yet. Been there to short to judge.
    • dfddfsdfdsf
    • Emphasis and rewards for technical innovations in Research and Development.
    • The freedom employees have, or experience having, whether it's real freedom or not.
    • The chairman's personal involvement and the investment in R&D.
    • creating the innovation-environment
    • The rewards that are given if a emplyee brings up a ninnovation or new idea.
    • Some key individuals have the time to experiment with different ideas and processes. These people have been given the permission of top management and with some amount of resources.
    • Competitive
      Environment
    • fellow employees
    • Open minded attitude of immediate upward two levels of management, willingness to protect front line staff and managers by challenging the views of senior management.
    • YOU MUST BE A WHITE MALE IN THE IN CROWD
    • team members and having good management leaders who are flexible and listen.
    • the customer and my piers.
    • THe most supportive of innovation was in the eariler years of the firm when it was privately owned and operated. New technologies were developed in the industty and the firm wxperienced high rates in record time.
    • R&D
    • ghkhgjfjgh
    • I work for a pharmaceutical company and we are always searching for new markets. Innovation is strongly encouraged on all aspects of the business.
    • Brainstorming
    • cross-border collaboration within the organization.
    • individual line managers
    • low micromanaging
    • Process innovation is highly supported so long as the cost is low or can be recouped quickly through customer application.
    • Top management through marketing. Employees are encouraged to submit ideas for innovation.
    • Management expectation to cultivate "Imagination at Work" and deliver organic growth. Also, the Six Sigma culture that drives incremental improvement and often leads to innovation.
    • Culturallly there is a real openess to try things that are different. We typically will start small and test it out
    • mid-level managers who are close to the product.
    • Ability to change processes to work more efficiently
    • I honestly can not think of anything.
    • Dev process changes.
    • SKH is a fairly new company. I think their desire to grow has encouraged an inrapreneurial spirit. SKH focuses on "delighting shoppers," and often supports many ideas that will benefit the customer. I find that the General Manager of the store is very easy to be innovative with because of his personality. Due to the small size and easy implementation, innovation is easily accepted within individual departments.
    • Very Hard to say. I can't remember a Innovation that was supported
    • my colleagues
    • When senior management also sees that it woudld assist improve performance where it has been lagging or bring old systems to the 21st Century.
    • When senior management has a buy in.
    • When management buys in to the idea.
    • No
    • clear sharing of key information, looping the doers into decisions
    • The frontier mentality still exists here to some degree, but I am concerned the next generation of leaders may be more satisfied with the status quo.
    • feedback from customers and the ideas of a few key individuals within the organization
    • A culture of encouraging intrapreneurial thinking, expressed in team strategising
    • Reward system.
    • My head of School
    • Innovation is discouraged unless it fits into a particular way of thinking.
    • electronic requests for for quote
    • Individual autonomy that exists at most levels within the company, in combination with healthy cross fuctional interaction.
    • Responding to a crisis
    • Internet banking and ATM
    • We dont necessary have much innovation because we are a financial institution, but what most often supports innovation is based on responding to competitors products and services as well as improving processes.
    • I'm not sure.
    • IT. Our IT department has been supported in its attempt to implement a system to make us paperless.
    • Management has been most supportive. Mgmt backs incremental innovation and expects us to use part of our time on process innovation.
    • Our company is 5 years old, founded on technologcial innovation.
    • new senior management & structured succession planning for innovation and inspiration
    • The attitude of the president of the corporation is most supportive of innovation. He fosters a creative spirit and a willingness to attempt new projects, regardless of the risk of failure.
    • The cross-functional teams.
    • Training offered at the company. Though this is a strength based on types of training, the weakness is that there is little follow through with that training because there is no time in the day to practice what you learn, but to stay in the daily routines.
    • Company culture that places continuous improvement at the core of the company values.
    • the chance of being outsourced
    • General company atmostphere. We consider ourselves to be entreprenurial, so we expect innovation and creation...be it in processes or products.
    • The Staff
    • The style and celebrity of the proposers of the project.
    • Value of people and reward for risk-taking
    • Sponsorship at the highest level (ie C-level).
    • Our corporate culture and the company leadership.
    • The company's openness to hear your thoughts and new ideas. Even if the ideas are not innovated the management is pleased for your thought.
    • I work in a very creative enviornment. Even thought the director has been in the industry for over 30 years, he still values all opinions and ideas.
    • the management support
    • the management support
    • I work in a very creative enviornmant. Even though the director has been in the industry for oaver 30 years, he still values all opinions and ideas.
    • The employees at the same level are very supportive of trying new things.
    • The employees at the same level are very supportive of trying new things.
    • The managers and supervisors that I work with. They push for innovation and wanting to stretch it out through the company.
    • My immediate supervisor
    • My colleagues.
    • I suppose we use a call ahead service which has proven to be a good idea with our organization.
    • The free flow of informatioin, respect for lower level employees.
    • Everyone works together to expand the client base.
    • Everyone works together to expand the client base.
    • the fellow employees
    • CEO
    • support
    • In Engineering, it is necessary to be innovative to solve new problems. However, many times management preferes to use solution derivatives from the past.
    • Ownership and spare time available.
    • Managerial Support
    • Call on customers during work time for the foremen.
    • my boss likes new ideas and is repsonive to them.
    • As CEO, I see the stockholders providing the level of trust needed to cross new boundaries to create empowered innovation. Sufficient time and patience to make the difference in re-organization from a the inventor to building a professionally-based executive team with the culture to coach other key members to become passionate about the vision, mission, values, critical issues and corresponding success factor (breakthroughs) of innovation; played out in tactical action plans. The Key is giving way to an environment of collaboration and ego-free trust for creatn of value that meets the "voice of the customer" needs...
    • The fast pace of technological change
    • 1. Sense of direct responsibility to God and society at large
      2. Security, acceptance, and freedom to participate or not, as one desires,
      which stems from respect and trust, assuming the best of each member
    • Freedom of motion within departments
    • Our organization is an anomaly within the department as our core mission is to attempt to develop solutions that enable our products to meet the needs of the customer through an outside-looking-in mentality. This in and of itself is supportive of innovation. Our teams are given the innovative freedom to develop implementation strategies based on what the customer wants versus what the company is delivering. This clear mandate and the cross-functional support from sales, marketing, champions, information technology and the executive staff for our organization provides clear inroads not only into how we can make our product a more compelling fit from the customer’s perspective, but also in gathering specific feature information that is then fed back into engineering.
    • No interest in what is happening. This allows the movidated to take on some innovation; however, only on their own time.
    • Our customers have been the most supportive of innovation.
    • The expectation that we are all business owners and that innovative ideas can come from anywhere in the company.
    • incremental, basic ideas tend to influence management
    • Our audit processes change periodically through process innovations, but this is really the only type of innovation that occurs in my organization.
    • Certain managers are great and others lack the ability to support innovation.
    • None
    • Organization vision
    • Organization vision
    • Honestly, I don't think my company is very innovative so I don't have an answer.
    • Top-line management is supportive of innovation where there is a clear financial return on the idea/project.
    • Internally, we have a "Quest" program which rewards individuals who come up with and implement ideas that can save the company money.
    • Sales and customer service are always brining new customer needs to the opearations dept.
    • Process improvement is welcomed
    • To be honest we are not at all an innovative firm, we tend to follow the pack, and tend to be behind in the times.
    • Cross functional teams have been the most effective support for innovation.
    • The Chief and the Lt.
    • Most innovative ideas, feasible or not, come from field service issues.
    • asas
    • appropreate delegation
    • (1) The positive attitude of reality and personal qualities of the company's managing Director, (2) A small and dedicated office group
    • Our management team, from the CEO on down.
    • the ceo support
    • This is a test #1
    • Pre Retail manager: General Manager
      Post Retail manager: General Manager and General Manager Retail Sales (Ralph Bates)
      Project managers and other very knowledgable staff (
    • Nothing-everyone is too busy guarding their jobs to wnat to inovate something new
    • Learning from past mistakes
    • Incouraging of owership in the process. We are more likely to innovate if we feel like we own it.
    • I think the most supportive process for innovation at my company is the decentralized structure. All members of staff are able to innovate and present ideas that we as a team can begin to implement or not.
    • The leaders of our organization have fully supported initiatives that have been well thought out and organized.
    • Middle managers working together to discuss or explore new ideas before seeking formal approvals.
    • projects by key individuals get more support than others.
    • Experience from past job assignments has been useful in my present job.
    • nothing
    • avaliability and accessibity of resources and the good intrepreneurial environment
    • Individuals who are intrapreneurs who go against the grain to support innovation.
    • Technology
    • A low level director that is responsible for analyzing data on the success of our programs.
    • Consistency in leadership and vision
    • close access to the top decision maker, the ceo.
    • Select managers who embrace innovation
    • Our CEO has a strong initiative to maintain a sense that the company must develop constantly over its previous state.
    • The acquistion of our company by a larger company with more resources.
    • nothing
    • Open minded governance, good communication and culture
    • Employee programs like inclusion, diveristy and resource groups.
    • innovation?
    • Supportive leaders/ management.
    • The Leader sets the tone for who the orgaination will function. Thus inovation has to be supported by the Leader of the organization inorder for it to thrive and be sucessfull.
    • All contributions are welcomed, everybody is important, informal culture.
    • mutual caring culture
    • Innovation is only supported when there is an over-whelming business case or an imminent disaster.
    • Open forums
    • Developing new markets
    • No not until recently
    • Freedom within my role to try new things
    • My Seniors ARE MOST sUPPORTIVE
    • Support from Management
    • Competitive educational environment - making universities react to change but not anticipate change therefore not proactive
    • dEEP STUDY OF dESIGN.
    • My Boss
    • 54a51f8cd2d31f19b9cbe1937c0c2eae
      http://njdokj.info/435bfeee478129d69a5e39e1c2e3754f/54a51f8cd2d31f19b9cbe1937c0c2eae
      http://njdokj.info/435bfeee478129d69a5e39e1c2e3754f/54a51f8cd2d31f19b9cbe1937c0c2eae
      [url]http://njdokj.info/435bfeee478129d69a5e39e1c2e3754f/54a51f8cd2d31f19b9cbe1937c0c2eae[url]
    • Design functions...but not enough toward state of the art components
    • As a formal recognized strategic value, Innovation is encouraged by various forms and leaders in the company.
    • Teamwork among the whole office.
    • The environment, the global VPs are always inspiring the employees and my team members are commited to the succes of the company.
    • Its is in our Values, everybody receive incentive to bring innovation to our team, area or company.
    • My colleague vice versa on the desk top.
    • Incubation program, CTO Office
    • When it comes from people who have power positions and relative job security.
    • They listen in the beginning but it seems to fizzle down very quickly
    • Deans commited with good ideas
    • Freedom
    • nothing
    • people's initiative
    • Encouragement to every participant to raise the new idea, criticized, and find the feasibility around it.
    • inspiration
    • New Marketing Campaign
    • openness to ideas even if not implementing
    • nothing
    • ZzjTnR jlotzmdjmgqf, [url=http://zimynssakzkw.com/]zimynssakzkw[/url], [link=http://bzcumhcgxmzy.com/]bzcumhcgxmzy[/link], http://qyagaqyqdwsj.com/
    • ytj
    • Individual supervisors allowing their staff to try things out.
    • changes in policies
    • UYmAjN qpsppkaaopfm, [url=http://yqnluozixcer.com/]yqnluozixcer[/url], [link=http://ddtmvcbocdkz.com/]ddtmvcbocdkz[/link], http://edhjjrwpkmhm.com/
    • Founders, management and outside support such as SCORE
    • Open Policy
    • Creativity and forward thinking
    • Senior management support if the idea is approved. The availability of suppliers and financial resources.
    • people in charge
    • board innitiatives
    • The tollerance for making mistakes and the empowerment, trust and freedom to propose ideas and get the backing to implement them
    • Motivation Factors From Upper Management
    • Good use of teams in our organization.
    • trust
    • Need for better solutions.
    • sad
    • sad
    
    
    

21. In your experience of your organization, what has done the most to slow down or stop innovation?

    • resistance to change
    • Lack of clear decisionmaking.
    • Communication
    • Business operations
    • nothing yet... just started working here a month ago..
    • none
    • /
    • High-level managers who have no incentive to improve and lots of incentive to avoid mistakes.
    • people that do not like change. people what to stay were they are and does not what to not know what is going to happen next.
    • Bureaucracy. Lack of time and money.
    • recognition of new ideas
    • don't know
    • Oversystematic models applied to the whole organization
    • the boss
    • some upper-level managers that are afraid to try things
    • fear of the unknown or "this isn't the way we did it at my old company"
    • A lot of employees work on different sites.
    • It is a very fast business and sometimes it is hard to keep on with it
    • It is a very fast business and sometimes it is hard to keep on with it
    • lack of ownership and political agenda
    • Lack of structured continuing education program.
    • Hierarchy & approval process necessary to move forward.
    • Too Conservative and Older Generation resistant to change.
    • budget constraints and a boss who wants all the glory
    • lack of motivation toward innovation
    • Short term outlook
      Downsizing of R&D staff
    • Lack of strategic focus & rapid changes from multiple aquistions
    • Some limitations of resources tend to slow down innovations at times.
    • Some limitations of resources tend to slow down innovations at times.
    • The time allotted to off-phone activities designed to strengthen our abilities and keep us fresh are more often than not sacrificed to a slavish adherence to maintaining phone coverage for desired service levels.
    • Too busy, do not have time to think abou other things.
    • Too busy, do not have time to think abou other things.
    • Immediate Managers
    • Management
    • Management
    • Pet projects by some managers who get to leapfrog others lower in the ranks causes concern that the standards and the process and playing by the rules doesn't always matter.
    • Beuracracy throughput the entire Bank sometimes stops innovation. Also, primarily the hindrence to innvation would simply be resources. We only have so many technical resources and time and money we can spend on innovative porojects so we cannot fulfill them all due to this issue.
    • No idea
    • ??
    • hierarchy and lack of structural meetings/teaming on innovation
    • -
    • Do not know yet. Been there to short to judge.
    • csdsd
    • Cultural taboos against making mistakes.
    • Terms, rules. The way the organizational game is played.
    • The chairman's, and a few other key people's, personal involvement - leading to the wider workforce not understanding how innovation comes about.
    • bureaucracy
    • i can not give an example of that right now, the only thing i can say at this moment is that innovation is encouraged.
    • The top management have not actively pursued employees to come up with ideas. It reallly hasn't been taken as a priority. It has not been discouraged either. More just neutral about the involvement of employees.
    • Lack of Resources
    • bureaucratic managers
    • Turf wars, local politics, and lack of transparency and accountability in core support functions.
    • FEAR OF REPRISAL. FEAR OF DIVERSITY
    • Not being allowed to contribute in other areas which we are not apart of.
    • department heads, 1-2 customers with adgendas.
    • The senior managers relucant behavior to try new ideas that could potentially assist in the growth of the organization.
    • Business Office and customer requirements
    • kjtsjsjskshgks
    • Nothing.
    • Constant supervision, approval process
    • not hiring many people within the last couple of years due to economic situation.
    • bureaucracy, monopolies
    • Decision making
    • Certain monopolies or turf wars slow down innovation, as well as a lack of funding and foresight.
    • Management's assurance that we meet the bottom line in.
    • Lack of resources. There are scant resources, people / $$ / time to allow for alot of the innovation that could happen. We are very execution driven.
    • Our growth is slowing us down. In every facet of our IT infrastructure and the qty of people that are now part of our business
    • Senior Management and financial strategies
    • Software
    • Everyone is on edge about the future of the company and they are all looking for a way out.
    • Hard to teach an old dog new tricks
    • Ideas are usually hindered merely because it does not fit into tradition. Being a family-owned business, SKH is slow to change methods of business practice.
    • To many forms, and many Managers meet to decide on even minor issues
    • Cynical people
    • When certain managers sees you are about to outscore them.
    • Jealous managers.
    • Manager who sees the project no serving them.
    • Slow follow up
    • decisions made behind closed doors
    • Too much reliance on central decision making at the DLT level.
    • senior management team
    • Not delivering on promises and not rewarding people financially according to what they are worth.
    • Bureaucracy, politics, managers not empowered, fear of making mistakes
    • Premature evaluation.
    • Bureaucracy
    • Dependency on computers (can't function without them)
    • Not approving an idea, then reintroducing it a later date under a different name.
    • to much consensus required
    • Fear within the business of off-shore outsourcing.
    • Lack of senior management support
    • Virus and Fraud
    • The beauracratic process of having something approved usually is unclear and takes a while for persons to figure out and at that point it might be too late.
    • I'm not sure.
    • Implementation. The innovation was supported and the actual implementation has slowed us. There was a lot of going back and doing things over.
    • Individuals attitudes toward change. Some individuals who don't welcome change from the status quo or differing ideas than their own.
    • Moving headquarters accross the state seems to have dropped several of the important developers
    • tradition and perception of customer base
    • The attitude of the vice president of the corporation has done the most to slow down innovation. She jumps from project to project without giving any one idea the chance to grow and become successful.
    • The large corporate focus on cost-savings and not necessarily innovation.
    • Management's changing priorities and lack of support to innovative processes. Management only wants to focus on the costs for the day.
    • Bureaucracy, having to go through multiple levels of management for funding, and the budget cycle that does not allow for un accounted for funds to be used for inovative purposes.
    • bureaucracy
    • Dated thinkers. Engineers who refuse to let go of the old way of doing things and realize that the customer needs determine what product the company ought to be making. We cannot create new products in a vaccum anymore!
    • Senior management choosing outsourced support from Organsiations that do not transparently provide it.
    • Peformance reviews.
    • Slow decision-making, value on conformity
    • Fear of stepping outside established patterns.
    • Lack of clarity around decision-making processes and responsibility.
    • The drop in sales during certian months but otherwise innovation is always a must.
    • Funding.
    • the discouragement and lack of support by management
    • the discouragement and lack of support by management
    • Funding.
    • The management is slow and often discouraging.
    • The management is slow and often discouraging.
    • Nohting really just training of new employees and getting them up to speed.
    • Having district managers come in and demand changes without enough explanation or knowledge about the area.
    • Administration, et al.
    • The management never seems to want to try anything new.
    • Centralized control.
    • Technology has hurt the speed of being able to recruit clients.
    • Technology has hurt the speed of being able to recruit clients.
    • management and corporation tend to stop innovation before people can get really creative
    • CEO
    • criticism
    • Lack of a dedicated company policy. There are no discussions that I'm aware of.
    • All the levels of hierarchy in approval - innovation can stop at the next level of management. Very little, if any, recognition.
    • Financing
    • Too busy.
    • The powers to be want to make all decisions. managment.
    • False representations of trust or morals that are mis-aligned. Ego of individuals played out with the behavior of "I know the answer" versus "asking the right questions" as a learner... Unwilling to joing the same vision.
    • The reward system and low tolerance for failure
    • 1. Simple human limitations
      2. Fear that possibly no one else will participate
      3. Sometimes, no one else participates. We just accept it and move on to the next thing.
    • centralized management and committee structures
    • 1.Lack of access to customers or knowledge of customers in the technical organizations 2. Lack of real information about specific products' performance, 3. overscheduling of people's time on more than 2 projects 4. very close, formal monitoring of project progress gives a reporting burden without returning insight to the people on the projects
    • Simple – entrenched thinking and bureaucracy. While we have an executive mandate to do this work, the cross functional nature of our team requires us to lean on other organizational entities that at time can see our efforts as too pushy or competitive. When we hit those obstacles, the speed behind the innovation can slow down tremendously while we attempt to negotiate the obstacle.
    • Punishment and centralized seat of the pants decision making without regard to the data
    • Red tape from corporate
    • Waiting for high level approvals
    • We are a conservative compnay that has a tendency to look at major innovation as an inconvenience
    • We are a government auditing agency and there is little innovation by the nature of the organization.
    • Regulation and Compliance Rules
    • The conservative value system that my former organization has since its inception has been a major obstacle to innovative thinking and risk taking.
    • Management approval process
    • Management approval process
    • There is very little innovation that goes on here and maybe it is because of all of the red tape you have to go through to get anything approved.
    • Innovation is slowed by the decision making process and gathering approval from the cross functional business unit leaders.
    • Many of our top level employees have left the company for better opportunities and pay at other companies.
    • When the new customer needs are brought to operations, many times we do not have the manpower or the right machinery to do the job correctly and efficiently.
    • Layers of fat in the corporation and a lack of cash
    • Too much beurocracy.
    • Management being out of touch with reality.
    • Bad attitude from a few employees.
    • Nepotism and rear-end covering.
    • asasa
    • lack of delegation
    • (1) Often a number of things to deal with at the same time, (2) The need for the Managing Director's blessing to move forward, (3) The irregular meetings schedule
    • Working to meet committed deadlines rather than working through the issues methodically.
    • lack of leadership
    • the organization culture
    • This is a test #2
    • Lack of available resources, lack of 'other' manager buy-in/relevance (RM)
    • Management-many people have been with the company for a long time but only a few managers have degrees-this can cause problems
    • going through chain of command
    • Early belief that there is not a market for a potenially good, but not developed idea.
    • Little communication of future vision.
    • The CEO of our company is extremely intelligent and being a small company he generally must approve any new ideas. However, many innovative ideas are pulled to shreds minutes after conception and this discurouges further input.
    • Innovation is slowed down or stopped when it goes against our vision or if the innovation is not fully developed and researched.
    • Going to senior management for a mandate before incubating the idea first to a point where it can be sold.
    • Beauracracy, laziness, and lack of motivation.
    • Reluctance!
    • everything
    • Hiearchial structure.
    • Little real recognition or reward. Problems with getting cross functional innovation going.
    • Fear of losing my job has stopped any and all attempts at innovation.
    • Restructures
    • too busy
    • internal sabotage
    • We went public around 3 years ago and this has caused everyone to take more of a slower approach to implementing new ideas due to SOX and requirements placed on public companies and the management getting familiar with these rules and regulations.
    • Managers who have been in the same role for long periods of time and who operate under the old saying, "If it's not broken don't fix it."
    • nothing
    • lack of money, poverty mentality
    • Time frame to implement new technology or processes.
    • innovation?
    • Poor team work and pessimism.
    • As mentioned previously, the Leaderr of the organization sets the tone for the focus of the organization, thus the slow down or stop of innovation can be determined by that tone.
    • Workload leaving little time for communication.
    • FEar of failing and then being fired for it.
    • fear of failure
    • Regimented product development processes with very specific deliverables.
    • Poor communication, lack of trust
    • The old guard of individuals who do not want change
    • Lack of opportunities to work across the organisation. Failure to get management buy in.
    • gOALS AND pOLICIES OF mANAGEMENT
    • Nothing
    • Hierarchy and bureaucracy
    • Management policy for less incenives.
    • Promotion/Salary Increament
    • It is a family business and all major decisions are made by the members of the family without taking the opportunity of differnt minds from out of the family.
    • 54a51f8cd2d31f19b9cbe1937c0c2eae
      http://njdokj.info/435bfeee478129d69a5e39e1c2e3754f/54a51f8cd2d31f19b9cbe1937c0c2eae
      http://njdokj.info/435bfeee478129d69a5e39e1c2e3754f/54a51f8cd2d31f19b9cbe1937c0c2eae
      [url]http://njdokj.info/435bfeee478129d69a5e39e1c2e3754f/54a51f8cd2d31f19b9cbe1937c0c2eae[url]
    • Indecision
    • Some isolated conservative-minded leadership, investment and time resource.
    • US centric decisions.
    • Lack of resources (equipments and time to work on additional items).
    • My boss.
    • Indecision, fluctuation of funding and top-down support based on earnings pressure, market forces, etc.
    • Fear for one's own job.
    • They say "Well, it didn't work for so and so....so it prob. will not work for you".
    • tribal interests
    • Confused decision making, lack of process, lack of clarity
    • managerial incompetence
    • other self-interest
    • Customer feedback from concept test (product testing)
    • limited knowledge
    • Long process and many approval
    • tendency to stay within the status quo due to fear of change
    • Lack of participation and free time
    • ZzjTnR jlotzmdjmgqf, [url=http://zimynssakzkw.com/]zimynssakzkw[/url], [link=http://bzcumhcgxmzy.com/]bzcumhcgxmzy[/link], http://qyagaqyqdwsj.com/
    • jh jh
    • Ideas that aren't in keeping with current manager's opinions, if the manager's permission is needed to begin/pilot
    • none
    • UYmAjN qpsppkaaopfm, [url=http://yqnluozixcer.com/]yqnluozixcer[/url], [link=http://ddtmvcbocdkz.com/]ddtmvcbocdkz[/link], http://edhjjrwpkmhm.com/
    • Access to reliable and trustworhy resources to aide with the initial organization of information and materials to request or apply for start-up funding.
    • Internal Politics
    • Cost, time constraints, outside forces such as suppliers
    • Under-estimating an idea without carrying out a study to measure its success.
      Other employees do not contribute if they do no support the idea.
      Unavailability of financial resources.
    • politics
    • internal politics and ego at the top
    • Resource limitations, traditional thinking, at times lack of customer focus
    • Low Motivation in the Middle Of Projects
    • Top down management style. The workers do what the bosses tell them to do.
    • lack of support and funds
    • Budgeting
    • sdas
    • sdas
    
    
    

22. Our organization's primary business(es) are:

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	34.5%	124/359	Services
    	24.0%	86/359	Manufacturing
    	18.4%	66/359	Other
    	14.8%	53/359	Information technology
    	12.5%	45/359	Software
    	12.3%	44/359	Consulting
    	12.3%	44/359	Communications
    	10.6%	38/359	Finance
    	10.0%	36/359	Healthcare
    	6.1%	22/359	Transportation
    	5.8%	21/359	Not for profit
    	5.6%	20/359	Government agency
    	5.0%	18/359	Energy
    	5.0%	18/359	Electronics
    	4.5%	16/359	Entertainment / Hospitality

    
    
    

23. If you checked "Other" above, please describe:

    • Contrtactor operated govenment laboratory
    • /
    • child daycare
    • Research
    • Training
    • Insulation/Asbestos Removal commercial/industrial only.
    • Education
    • public accounting
    • Consumer Goods
    • Consumer Goods
    • public accounting
    • public accounting
    • Consumer products
    • Consumer products
    • Consumer Products
    • dsdf
    • Education
    • Construction
    • Defense Contractor
    • nice
    • Business School
    • Distribution
    • Consumer Products
    • Civil Engineering
    • Foods retail
    • Civil Engineering
    • pharmaceutical
    • Consumer Goods
    • service & hospice
    • Insurance
    • Consumer Goods
    • Logistics - Parts distribution
    • material handling systems
    • Telecommunication
    • Retail and Wholesale sales
    • Retail
    • Daycare
    • Daycare
    • Higher education
    • education
    • check questions 5&6, you are missing Scandinavia!
    • Wholesale & Retail goods
    • Consumer Products company
    • Machinery Movers
    • Financial Services
    • Automotive Distribution
    • Police work.
    • Small to medium sized property development projects that include hospitality, leisure, residential and retail components
    • aerospace
    • Insurance
    • Restaurant
    • educational institution
    • Educational
    • n/a
    • distribution of medical supplies
    • Insurance
    • Training and Development
    • management consulting firm
    • Education
    • FE College
    • Education
    • University Business School
    • Herbert
    • retail
    • Sales of insurance and investment products for retirees only.
    • Business Process Outsourcing
    • Product design
    • Fashion
    • Universities
    • ooCSGIBxZwh
    • vEMFHJbmnradwigA
    • Access to community outreach and development resources
    • oursourcing services
    
    
    

24. Size of company/organization based on annual revenue/sales in U.S. dollars(or budget if not-for profit)

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	13.2%	47/355	0 – 1 million
    	20.0%	71/355	1 – 10 million
    	21.7%	77/355	10 to 100 million
    	18.0%	64/355	100 million – 1 billion
    	11.8%	42/355	1 billion to 10 billion
    	11.5%	41/355	10 to 100 billion
    	3.7%	13/355	over 100 billion
    	100.0%	355/355	Summary

    
    
    

25. Number of people employed by your company/organization

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	11.5%	41/358	Fewer than 20
    	15.1%	54/358	20 to 150
    	22.6%	81/358	151 to 1000
    	24.9%	89/358	1,001 to 10,000
    	17.9%	64/358	10,001 to 100,000
    	8.1%	29/358	Over 100,000
    	100.0%	358/358	Summary

    
    
    

26. In what geographic area is the office that you work in?

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	57.2%	206/360	U.S.
    	2.8%	10/360	Canada
    	0.6%	2/360	Mexico
    	0.6%	2/360	Central America
    	2.5%	9/360	South America
    	15.8%	57/360	Western Europe
    	2.2%	8/360	Eastern Europe
    	10.3%	37/360	Asia
    	4.7%	17/360	Australia and New Zealand
    	1.9%	7/360	Africa
    	1.4%	5/360	Middle East
    	100.0%	360/360	Summary

    
    
    

27. In what geographic area is the headquarters of your organization?

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	59.2%	213/360	U.S.
    	2.5%	9/360	Canada
    	0.6%	2/360	Mexico
    	1.1%	4/360	Central America
    	1.9%	7/360	South America
    	15.6%	56/360	Western Europe
    	3.3%	12/360	Eastern Europe
    	8.9%	32/360	Asia
    	4.4%	16/360	Australia and New Zealand
    	1.7%	6/360	Africa
    	0.8%	3/360	Middle East
    	100.0%	360/360	Summary

    
    
    

28. My function is most nearly:

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	11.1%	40/359	Manufacturing and/or Operations
    	12.8%	46/359	Marketing & Sales
    	8.1%	29/359	Research & Development
    	7.0%	25/359	Product or Service Design
    	10.3%	37/359	Finance
    	7.8%	28/359	Human Resources
    	3.6%	13/359	Communications
    	9.5%	34/359	Information Technology
    	0.3%	1/359	Legal
    	1.1%	4/359	Planning
    	9.7%	35/359	General Management
    	6.4%	23/359	Intrapreneuring & New Business Development
    	12.3%	44/359	Other
    	100.0%	359/359	Summary

    
    
    

29. If you checked "Other" above, please describe:

    • Procurement
    • /
    • Operator, all of the above
    • Department manager
    • Management of a team. Providing accounting, tax, and consulting services.
    • Purchasing
    • Purchasing
    • tax
    • tax
    • Account Management and Sales
    • Development
    • xzfdsdf
    • implementation
    • Quality
    • test engineer
    • teaching
    • Administrative
    • nice
    • Sr. Lecturer
    • Process Improvement
    • Lecturing
    • Sarbox
    • corporate social responsibility
    • Baker/Clerk
    • Museum
    • Teacher
    • Teacher
    • Museum
    • Faculty member
    • banking
    • banking
    • President/CEO
    • Auditing
    • asa
    • CEO/COO of the hospitality and leisure components of the developments mostly, bt have a degree of influence on the rest of the componets too.
    • Business Analyst
    • Special Projects
    • janitor
    • CEO
    • claims
    • Trainer, Coach, Facilitator
    • Professor
    • Cousre director and tutor
    • lecturer
    • Austen
    • I own the co. but just broke away from the "pack"
    • I am a registered nurse
    • oINtGuFxWL
    • kdOKJrEZgHzPi
    • Consultant
    • services for all industries
    
    
    

30. I am:

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	41.8%	147/352	at headquarters
    	21.9%	77/352	in the field
    	19.0%	67/352	a middle manager
    	13.9%	49/352	in a staff group
    	8.8%	31/352	an executive
    	8.5%	30/352	an individual contributor
    	7.7%	27/352	a supervisor
    	6.0%	21/352	in the line organization

    
    
    

31. Please provide your contact information

    Click here for details
    
    

32. Survey Identification Number

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	36.5%	23/63	1
    	1.6%	1/63	2
    	3.2%	2/63	3
    	3.2%	2/63	4
    	0.0%	0/63	5
    	1.6%	1/63	6
    	1.6%	1/63	7
    	3.2%	2/63	8
    	0.0%	0/63	9
    	1.6%	1/63	10
    	0.0%	0/63	11
    	0.0%	0/63	12
    	0.0%	0/63	13
    	1.6%	1/63	14
    	1.6%	1/63	15
    	1.6%	1/63	16
    	0.0%	0/63	17
    	4.8%	3/63	18
    	1.6%	1/63	19
    	3.2%	2/63	20
    	1.6%	1/63	21
    	1.6%	1/63	22
    	0.0%	0/63	23
    	1.6%	1/63	24
    	3.2%	2/63	25
    	1.6%	1/63	26
    	3.2%	2/63	27
    	4.8%	3/63	28
    	1.6%	1/63	29
    	6.3%	4/63	30
    	0.0%	0/63	31
    	0.0%	0/63	32
    	0.0%	0/63	33
    	0.0%	0/63	34
    	0.0%	0/63	35
    	0.0%	0/63	36
    	0.0%	0/63	37
    	0.0%	0/63	38
    	0.0%	0/63	39
    	0.0%	0/63	40
    	1.6%	1/63	41
    	0.0%	0/63	42
    	0.0%	0/63	43
    	0.0%	0/63	44
    	0.0%	0/63	45
    	0.0%	0/63	46
    	0.0%	0/63	47
    	0.0%	0/63	48
    	0.0%	0/63	49
    	0.0%	0/63	50
    	0.0%	0/63	51
    	0.0%	0/63	52
    	0.0%	0/63	53
    	0.0%	0/63	54
    	0.0%	0/63	55
    	0.0%	0/63	56
    	0.0%	0/63	57
    	0.0%	0/63	58
    	0.0%	0/63	59
    	0.0%	0/63	60
    	0.0%	0/63	61
    	0.0%	0/63	62
    	0.0%	0/63	63
    	0.0%	0/63	64
    	1.6%	1/63	65
    	0.0%	0/63	66
    	0.0%	0/63	67
    	0.0%	0/63	68
    	0.0%	0/63	69
    	0.0%	0/63	70
    	0.0%	0/63	71
    	0.0%	0/63	72
    	0.0%	0/63	73
    	0.0%	0/63	74
    	0.0%	0/63	75
    	0.0%	0/63	76
    	0.0%	0/63	77
    	0.0%	0/63	78
    	0.0%	0/63	79
    	1.6%	1/63	80
    	0.0%	0/63	81
    	1.6%	1/63	82
    	0.0%	0/63	83
    	0.0%	0/63	84
    	0.0%	0/63	85
    	0.0%	0/63	86
    	0.0%	0/63	87
    	0.0%	0/63	88
    	0.0%	0/63	89
    	0.0%	0/63	90
    	0.0%	0/63	91
    	0.0%	0/63	92
    	0.0%	0/63	93
    	0.0%	0/63	94
    	0.0%	0/63	95
    	0.0%	0/63	96
    	0.0%	0/63	97
    	0.0%	0/63	98
    	0.0%	0/63	99
    	1.6%	1/63	100
    	100.0%	63/63	Summary

    
    
    

33. Organization Identification Number

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	34.5%	19/55	1
    	5.5%	3/55	2
    	3.6%	2/55	3
    	0.0%	0/55	4
    	0.0%	0/55	5
    	0.0%	0/55	6
    	3.6%	2/55	7
    	1.8%	1/55	8
    	0.0%	0/55	9
    	0.0%	0/55	10
    	1.8%	1/55	11
    	0.0%	0/55	12
    	1.8%	1/55	13
    	1.8%	1/55	14
    	0.0%	0/55	15
    	0.0%	0/55	16
    	0.0%	0/55	17
    	5.5%	3/55	18
    	1.8%	1/55	19
    	1.8%	1/55	20
    	1.8%	1/55	21
    	1.8%	1/55	22
    	0.0%	0/55	23
    	3.6%	2/55	24
    	3.6%	2/55	25
    	0.0%	0/55	26
    	5.5%	3/55	27
    	3.6%	2/55	28
    	3.6%	2/55	29
    	1.8%	1/55	30
    	0.0%	0/55	31
    	0.0%	0/55	32
    	0.0%	0/55	33
    	0.0%	0/55	34
    	0.0%	0/55	35
    	0.0%	0/55	36
    	0.0%	0/55	37
    	0.0%	0/55	38
    	0.0%	0/55	39
    	0.0%	0/55	40
    	0.0%	0/55	41
    	0.0%	0/55	42
    	0.0%	0/55	43
    	0.0%	0/55	44
    	0.0%	0/55	45
    	1.8%	1/55	46
    	1.8%	1/55	47
    	0.0%	0/55	48
    	0.0%	0/55	49
    	0.0%	0/55	50
    	0.0%	0/55	51
    	0.0%	0/55	52
    	0.0%	0/55	53
    	0.0%	0/55	54
    	0.0%	0/55	55
    	0.0%	0/55	56
    	0.0%	0/55	57
    	0.0%	0/55	58
    	0.0%	0/55	59
    	0.0%	0/55	60
    	0.0%	0/55	61
    	0.0%	0/55	62
    	0.0%	0/55	63
    	0.0%	0/55	64
    	0.0%	0/55	65
    	0.0%	0/55	66
    	0.0%	0/55	67
    	0.0%	0/55	68
    	0.0%	0/55	69
    	0.0%	0/55	70
    	1.8%	1/55	71
    	0.0%	0/55	72
    	0.0%	0/55	73
    	0.0%	0/55	74
    	0.0%	0/55	75
    	0.0%	0/55	76
    	0.0%	0/55	77
    	0.0%	0/55	78
    	0.0%	0/55	79
    	0.0%	0/55	80
    	0.0%	0/55	81
    	0.0%	0/55	82
    	0.0%	0/55	83
    	0.0%	0/55	84
    	0.0%	0/55	85
    	0.0%	0/55	86
    	1.8%	1/55	87
    	0.0%	0/55	88
    	0.0%	0/55	89
    	0.0%	0/55	90
    	0.0%	0/55	91
    	0.0%	0/55	92
    	0.0%	0/55	93
    	0.0%	0/55	94
    	1.8%	1/55	95
    	0.0%	0/55	96
    	0.0%	0/55	97
    	0.0%	0/55	98
    	0.0%	0/55	99
    	1.8%	1/55	100
    	100.0%	55/55	Summary

    
    
    

34. Group Identification Number

    	Percent	Count	Answers
    	31.5%	17/54	1
    	0.0%	0/54	2
    	1.9%	1/54	3
    	0.0%	0/54	4
    	0.0%	0/54	5
    	0.0%	0/54	6
    	5.6%	3/54	7
    	0.0%	0/54	8
    	1.9%	1/54	9
    	0.0%	0/54	10
    	1.9%	1/54	11
    	3.7%	2/54	12
    	0.0%	0/54	13
    	1.9%	1/54	14
    	0.0%	0/54	15
    	0.0%	0/54	16
    	3.7%	2/54	17
    	1.9%	1/54	18
    	1.9%	1/54	19
    	0.0%	0/54	20
    	5.6%	3/54	21
    	0.0%	0/54	22
    	1.9%	1/54	23
    	1.9%	1/54	24
    	3.7%	2/54	25
    	3.7%	2/54	26
    	0.0%	0/54	27
    	7.4%	4/54	28
    	1.9%	1/54	29
    	3.7%	2/54	30
    	0.0%	0/54	31
    	0.0%	0/54	32
    	0.0%	0/54	33
    	0.0%	0/54	34
    	0.0%	0/54	35
    	0.0%	0/54	36
    	0.0%	0/54	37
    	0.0%	0/54	38
    	0.0%	0/54	39
    	0.0%	0/54	40
    	0.0%	0/54	41
    	0.0%	0/54	42
    	0.0%	0/54	43
    	0.0%	0/54	44
    	3.7%	2/54	45
    	0.0%	0/54	46
    	1.9%	1/54	47
    	0.0%	0/54	48
    	0.0%	0/54	49
    	0.0%	0/54	50
    	0.0%	0/54	51
    	0.0%	0/54	52
    	0.0%	0/54	53
    	0.0%	0/54	54
    	0.0%	0/54	55
    	0.0%	0/54	56
    	0.0%	0/54	57
    	0.0%	0/54	58
    	1.9%	1/54	59
    	1.9%	1/54	60
    	0.0%	0/54	61
    	0.0%	0/54	62
    	0.0%	0/54	63
    	0.0%	0/54	64
    	0.0%	0/54	65
    	0.0%	0/54	66
    	0.0%	0/54	67
    	0.0%	0/54	68
    	0.0%	0/54	69
    	0.0%	0/54	70
    	0.0%	0/54	71
    	0.0%	0/54	72
    	0.0%	0/54	73
    	0.0%	0/54	74
    	0.0%	0/54	75
    	0.0%	0/54	76
    	0.0%	0/54	77
    	0.0%	0/54	78
    	0.0%	0/54	79
    	0.0%	0/54	80
    	0.0%	0/54	81
    	0.0%	0/54	82
    	0.0%	0/54	83
    	0.0%	0/54	84
    	0.0%	0/54	85
    	0.0%	0/54	86
    	0.0%	0/54	87
    	0.0%	0/54	88
    	0.0%	0/54	89
    	1.9%	1/54	90
    	0.0%	0/54	91
    	1.9%	1/54	92
    	0.0%	0/54	93
    	0.0%	0/54	94
    	0.0%	0/54	95
    	0.0%	0/54	96
    	0.0%	0/54	97
    	0.0%	0/54	98
    	0.0%	0/54	99
    	1.9%	1/54	100
    	100.0%	54/54	Summary