Innovation Management In Projects

In an era where #sustainability is often discussed as merely a reporting and disclosure requirement but seldom truly implemented, it's crucial to talk about the role of (transformative) innovation in today's resource-constrained world. At it’s core this means transitioning from the traditional 'take-make-waste' business model to one that is #regenerative and #circular. Innovating for sustainability means continuously adapting and reimagining business models to create value without compromising the planet. Our new book The Circular Business Revolution outlines five circular business model archetypes, providing a comprehensive and practical guide for leaders aiming to drive sustainable innovation. For a preliminary insight, our whitepaper offers a great starting point: https://lnkd.in/eEJJsKrG Interested in taking the lead in this critical transition? IMD’s 'Creating Value in the Circular Economy' program equips leaders with a step-by-step approach to developing successful circular business models, aligning business and environmental value for sustainable success. Explore our new program here -https://lnkd.in/eD4a57aV Is your organization already embarking on its circularity journey? I would love to hear about your experiences on this transformative path!

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗘𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘁-𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗡𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 & 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗚𝗼𝗮𝗹𝘀 EA gets caught between the 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 and the 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆. Some orgs embed EA into SA roles so projects meet current demands. Others make EA a billable function, tying value to immediate deliverables. Both approaches bring risks: ➡ When SAs wear EA hats, decisions are localized rather than strategically aligned, risking fragmented technology landscapes. ➡ When EA is billable, there’s pressure to justify work through short-term project outcomes over enterprise-wide impact. To drive transformation, EA must be a 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿. Here are 3 Ways EA Balances The Short- and Long-Term: 𝟭 | 𝗘𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗱 𝗘𝗔 𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆, 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 EA shouldn’t just validate solutions—it should shape them. 𝙃𝙤𝙬?  ✔ Engage EA in strategy to align roadmaps with business goals.  ✔ Ensure decisions are more than tactical—connect them to enterprise-wide outcomes.  ✔ Establish EA governance so short-term decisions don't create long-term complexity. 📊 EA works best defining the guardrails—not just reviewing outputs. 𝟮 | 𝗕𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 Orgs need speed to stay competitive—but not at the cost of architectural integrity. 𝙃𝙤𝙬?  ✔ Iterative architecture allows for agile decision-making while maintaining long-term vision.  ✔ EA assesses the impact of emerging technologies before disrupting existing structures.  ✔ Use reference architectures and patterns to ensure scalability while allowing for flexibility. 🔄 EA helps businesses move fast—without breaking the foundation. 𝟯 | 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗘𝗔’𝘀 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗕𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲𝘀 If EA is only evaluated by project success, its strategic influence diminishes. 𝙃𝙤𝙬?  ✔ 𝗧𝗶𝗲 𝗘𝗔 𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲, not technical implementation.  ✔ Define KPIs that reflect cost savings, agility, and risk reduction.  ✔ Showcase EA’s role in long-term value creation, beyond project timelines. 🎯 EA’s success isn’t just about what gets built today—it’s about what remains sustainable tomorrow. 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 Enterprise Architecture isn’t a support function—𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗿. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽, 𝗘𝗔 𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘁-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝘄𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀. _ ➕ Follow Kevin Donovan, ring the bell 🔔 👍 Like  |  ♻️ Repost _ 🚀 Join Architects' Hub!  Sign up for our newsletter. Connect with a community that gets it. Improve skills, meet peers, and elevate your career! Subscribe 👉 https://lnkd.in/dgmQqfu2 #EnterpriseArchitecture #DigitalTransformation

I typically do not use the term “change management” (unless I’m working with a partner who wants or needs to use it).  “Managing” change implies order, planning & stability; the ability to forecast, direct & deliver outcomes. Yet very few change or transformation plans deliver what they set out to deliver, in the predicted timescales. We no longer operate in a stable world where we undertake a change project and move back to equilibrium. Our environment moves faster, acts in more interconnected ways & is full of ambiguity. Change is relentless & continuous. We need to focus on building adaptive capacity & creating a collective process, not on "managing" change as a discrete, manageable task.  Michael Hudson talks about shifting from “change management” to “change fitness”. He sets out three core leadership practices for enabling change: 1. Continuous sensemaking: This involves incorporating five minutes of sensemaking into existing team routines, understanding what is different or changing. Over time, this practice builds "complexity capacity" & the ability to hold onto multiple, often contradictory realities without becoming overwhelmed. 2. Strategic energy management: Treating people’s energy as a finite resource that needs to be deliberately managed, like any other resource.  3. Learning from navigation, not just success: Shifting from an outcome-focus to process-focus builds the ability to prevail in situations where the path forward is unclear. https://lnkd.in/eqQQM5FF Via Forbes. Graphic from Corporate Rebels.

AI changed the PM role as we know it. PMs who adapt will be in high demand. The PM role has been about process management. But a new group of project managers is emerging. They're using AI to speed up admin work, and turning their focus to strategic leadership. Most of what project managers do manually today is exactly what AI tools are getting good at: - Status report generation - Project planning and scheduling - Budget tracking and forecasting - Risk monitoring and alerts - Team capacity planning AI can already automate these PM tasks. The technology will only get better. I recently spoke with several executives. They are already moving basic PM tasks to AI. When AI can generate project plans, track budgets, and monitor risks automatically, what happens to the old-school PM role? Simple projects won't need dedicated PMs anymore. AI will handle the basic administrative PM work. We're already seeing this change. But there's a big opportunity here too. AI has a major blind spot. It can't figure out the tricky psychology of team dynamics. It can't handle complex stakeholder politics. It can't connect business goals to what motivates the team. AI can't lead and handle people's problems. → Simple projects: PM roles mix into other roles → Complex enterprises: Strategic PM roles become key Most valuable projects are complex and people-focused. Want to stay relevant? Here's what to think about. Learn how to handle team dynamics ↳ Navigate politics, egos, and conflicting priorities Master stakeholder management and communication ↳ Make sure everyone agrees on what success looks like Study how turn business goals into team motivation ↳ Work with people to get them excited about the project Direct AI with human context ↳ Give AI the right instructions and priorities to work with The PM industry isn't dead. But it is changing. ♻️ Share this to help other project managers. Follow me Alex Barady and my company ENDGAME for pragmatic AI strategies and execution.

Uncertainty—not workload—is the real productivity killer. Have you ever noticed how unclear expectations can stress out even the most capable employees? I’ve seen it happen: - Teams lose momentum because they’re unsure what success looks like. - Deadlines are missed because priorities were never clearly communicated. - Frustration builds as employees feel they’re being set up to fail. Here’s the real impact: When expectations aren’t clear, performance suffers—not because employees aren’t capable, but because they’re left guessing. The fix? ➜ Define success from the start. ➜ Provide clear goals and priorities for every project. ➜ Check in regularly to ensure alignment and clarity. Clarity isn’t just a management tool—it’s the foundation for trust, confidence, and high performance. How do you ensure your team always knows what’s expected?

Is the process of innovation in need of innovation? Most innovation processes are linear. First, you do A. Then, you do B. Each stage-gated step earns you permission to move to the next step. If you’re lucky, you make it to the MVP step, where your prototype arrives in the hands of users. The steps from start through MVP are usually product-focused: What’s the idea? Who needs it? What are their pain points? Which features address the pain points? Answering those questions is a terrific way to build a product. But it’s a terrible way to assess the most important questions: Is somebody going to buy this thing? How many somebodys? It’s not that innovation teams ignore the question of demand. Pre-MVP surveys often assess new product interest. Surveys, however, don’t tell you if people want to buy your product; they just tell you whether people *think* they want to buy your product. Even worse, in many cases survey respondents are paid for their opinions. Are you really going to get a good read on how they will behave when they encounter your product for sale in the real world? 💡 Here’s an idea: Don’t put marketing at the end of the process. Put it at the beginning. Answer the hardest question—does anyone want this product?—as soon as you can. You may be thinking: how do I know which product to market? It’s early days. Good news: you can test-market multiple product concepts or multiple ways to position a product. Use ads. Be honest (“in development” should be prominent). See who clicks. See how many click. If it doesn’t meet your hurdle, try again or pull the plug. Learning early is better than learning late. Lean Startup and its MVP approach were arguably the last big innovation in innovation. But that was over 15 years ago. Isn’t it time for a new look at the process of innovation? #innovation #marketing #demandvalidation #concepttesting #heattesting

On May 22, 2025, Microsoft signed a deal to purchase over 600,000 tons of #lowcarbon cement from Sublime Systems ; cement produced without fossil fuels, using an innovative electrochemical process. Just a few days later, on May 28, Google expanded its partnership with Arable an agtech startup helping U.S. farmers save 2 billion liters of #water using smart irrigation technology. These aren’t CSR headlines. They’re clear signals that environmental goals and financial sustainability are not in conflict. This is happening in the US even with the strong stance on #sustainability. When driven strategically, sustainability is both a climate solution and a long-term value play. But what’s even more powerful is the catalytic effect of such moves: 1- Microsoft’s purchase enables Sublime Systems to scale its technology faster and cheaper. 2- Google’s validation helps Arable prove its model and unlock broader adoption. When industry giants act as early adopters, they don’t just decarbonize they create entire markets! This is exactly the kind of thinking that can supercharge the #startupecosystem in the #GCC. With ambitious sustainability agendas, national champions in the region can turn their assets into real world #testbeds, validating technologies, shortening the path to commercialization, and nurturing homegrown solutions. We often speak of ecosystems. But ecosystems thrive not in isolation, but through interdependence between the boldness of big players and the brilliance of small innovators. #Sustainability #Innovation #ClimateTech #CircularEconomy #GCC #Startups #GreenGrowth #WaterManagement #GreenConstruction #CenterForSustainableFuture Elias Aad Dragos Fundulea

This stat really struck me: most breakthrough innovations come from executing existing ideas in new ways. Our first instinct when seeking change is often to look outward for something entirely new. New habits, new tech, complete overhauls, etc. But especially when we need to be cost-conscious, we need to embrace a different mindset. Look inward first. Scale what's working. Rigorously analyze what isn't – can you extract value or apply it differently? Innovation isn't always about the never-before-seen. It's often about leaning into what works, exploring all its uses, and sparking small wins into something transformational.   I saw this firsthand at HSN when we launched HSN Arcade. The idea was innovative, but simple: combine casual online gaming with ecommerce to create a fun “Watch, Shop, and Play” experience. It all started when I saw someone totally hooked on Candy Crush. That got me thinking, how can we integrate gamification into our platform using our brands and talent as personalities? In the process, we brought that same addictive, engaging experience into HSN’s digital platform. Not only was it highly engaging, but it also had a drastic impact on business performance. Players visited 3x more often, spent 3x more time on the platform, and spent 3x more money with us. And remember HSN Shop by Remote? It was groundbreaking, but at its core, it was about understanding our audience's growing desire for more convenient, accessible ways to shop. These weren’t just innovative projects, they were bold moves powered by a willingness to ask, “What if?” instead of panicking over “What now?”   So, let's not fall into the trap of believing that innovation demands a complete overhaul. Embrace the nuances within your existing frameworks. Cultivate a culture that thrives on smart experimentation. And most importantly, empower your teams to see the current ideas as the critical starting points for your next big breakthrough. They just might need to be explored and connected in a whole new way.

The fastest way to fail a massive, ambiguous project? Act like you know the answer. I see this all the time at work: a senior leader drops a vague, massive idea - the classic "future-of-X" project. The immediate reaction is panic. Teams scramble to produce a hundred-page one-pager ( 😉) defining every detail before the core idea is even solid. Why? Because we think defining the scope equals control. Here’s what I learned leading complex initiatives: You don't earn credibility by knowing the plan; you earn it by defining the right questions. Ambiguity is the universal signal that it's time to stop managing tasks and start leading thought. For years, I was the one trying to solve every vague ask solo. Now, I use a simple 5-point method to force the right conversation with senior stakeholders. This method shifts the focus from managing complexity to collapsing it down to the five critical decisions that unlock 80% of the project's path. It turns an impossible problem into five manageable, senior-level ownership points. 1️⃣ Stop Defining the Scope, Define the Exit Criteria: Agree with your principal stakeholders: what is the single, non-negotiable metric that if broken, forces the project to pause or pivot? 2️⃣ Translate the Vague into Team Trade-Offs: Never go to the team with an ambiguous question. Instead, frame the ask as concrete, strategic options. Your job is to facilitate the choice, not present the solution. 3️⃣ Find the Sacred Cow: Every ambiguous project is built on one risky assumption. Find it. Challenge it. Publicly. 4️⃣ Audit the Information Gaps (Not People): Do not ask, "Who owns this piece?" Ask, "Who has the data (or context) we need to move forward?" Then, make the introduction. 5️⃣ Secure One 'Yes': Your first goal isn't securing the whole budget. It's getting a key sponsor to agree to the next single question you must answer. This creates momentum without over-promising. This is the scaffolding that elevates your role from excellent operator to strategic leader. It shows you're not just executing the plan, you're architecting the path. – I share actionable frameworks and real-world stories for tech leaders. 👉 Follow me, Rony Rozen, to get them in your feed.

When execution struggles, the default response is predictable. Hire more people. Add more tools. Bring in more support. It feels logical. But it rarely fixes the problem. Because unclear execution doesn’t come from lack of resources. It comes from lack of direction. Teams don’t slow down because they can’t do the work. They slow down because they’re constantly re-deciding what the work should be. Priorities shift. Inputs change. Decisions get revisited. So execution becomes unstable. Most leaders only notice this when it’s already expensive. Costs increase. Timelines extend. Outputs fragment. And the instinct is to add more capacity. But more capacity doesn’t solve ambiguity. It amplifies it. Because now more people are operating without clear direction. Execution improves when leadership reduces decision friction. When priorities are stable. When trade-offs are clear. When teams aren’t guessing. Execution is not a resource problem. It’s a leadership clarity problem.