Chief Innovation Officer? And why not Chief Future Officer?

The governance and innovation management model in a company depends on many variables. There is no ideal model that fits perfectly in all organizations, optimized for certain sectors or for companies of a specific size. Its variables are immense and are related to what I call the "Innovation Metabolism", i.e. the set of organizational requirements for innovation to take on a strategic, deliberate and systematic character in the company, such as: having (or not) a specific unit or department for innovation management; having (or not) a specific strategy for innovation; or having (or not) top leadership for innovation (Chief Innovation Officer).

The problem with this discussion is that it is invariably based much more on the past than the future. In other words, it is the company's history, its tradition, its know-how, its resources (and its most efficient organization) and its market - or its current offer to customers - that stimulate the need to trigger the discussion about the innovation governance model.  

But what if we thought first about what we want for the future? What if we went beyond the classic nomenclatures and conventional organizational models, as well as the static view of the role of innovation?  

Those of you who have worked with me the longest know that I am enthusiastic about the transversal role of innovation and that I believe that EVERYONE in the company works on innovation. I believe that the first Chief Innovation Officer is actually the CEO and that innovation is a universal management tool, applicable in all areas, all sectors and units.

Does this mean that I don't believe in the existence of an innovation department or team? Or in the need for a Chief Innovation Officer? No, on the contrary. I believe that this role and this work are absolutely critical to the survival and competitiveness of any organization. However, I also believe that without a deep connection to the company's strategy, culture and organization, innovation will not be able to generate lasting value and impact.

In short: I believe that companies need a person who thinks about the future in an integrated way. Not just innovation. I believe that companies need a Chief Future Officer who is capable of determining their future, acting like a "North Star", monitoring sources of disruption, experimenting with new concepts, products, services, business models, markets, etc., and pointing out new paths to competitiveness that reduce the risk of irrelevance and the company's decline.

In practice, this results from combining three of the company's major activities: strategy, innovation and transformation. The fusion of these areas allows for an integrated vision of the future, guaranteeing alignment, prioritization, the capacity for rapid experimentation and validation, monitoring external forces, but also acting on the entire "Innovation Metabolism" of the company itself, leading its capacity to anticipate, but also to adapt.

This means an evolution of executive committees beyond the classic positions, functions and models that came from the 2nd Industrial Revolution, where the CEO will be surrounded by a Chief Operations Officer who focuses on the present, on execution, on short-term indicators and objectives, and a Chief Future Officer who focuses on the future, on discovery, on medium and long-term strategy, on the longevity, competitiveness and sustainability of the company.

Why not?

‍

This text is a republication of an opinion article published in Exame - read the original here.