Did the Horizons framework (H1, H2, H3) become a pastiche of innovation strategy?
One of the recurring subjects when discussing innovation strategy with board members and seasoned strategy and innovation executives is the difficulties of strategic formulation. Along many of those discussions I become more and more aware of how the famed “horizons framework”, in an attempt to simplify, actually obscures rather than sheds light on reflection, decision-making guidance, and measurement of corporate innovation results.
One of the most obvious criticisms of the framework is that it places the dimension of “time” as an explicit axis of the trajectory of an innovation strategy. This makes little sense, as it ignores the difference that historians point out between “historical time” and “chronological time.” Time is a dependent variable of the innovation process and not a driving variable.
This normative use of “time” shows the implicit (and probably unconscious) assumption of a trajectory based on the “Linear Innovation Model,” which is a widely outdated framework in modern understanding of innovation. This is the same mistake that is observed in the use of the concept of technology roadmapping.
Another particularly harmful point is that, by focusing on the dimensions of “horizons,” the framework loses the ability to adequately reflect on innovation strategy. Under the guise of simplification, granularity and nuance are lost on what actually characterizes distinct innovation efforts as a deliberate process (echoing the canonical Schumpeterian definition).
The heuristics (processes, tools, and metrics), capabilities, and organizational designs are more distinct in the dimensions of taxonomic portfolios, which consider the nature of application and the distance from the frontier (using, for example, the Oslo Manual framework) than in the simple “horizons.”
I have observed this confusion and lack of clarity in discussions with various executives and board members involved in the innovation agenda of companies who, kidnapped by this framework, cannot work with a robust strategy, well-defined portfolios and theses, and sufficient information to guide the proper attention and allocation of resources. Confusion, and consequent anxiety, is the clearest symptom.
Models and frameworks are always simplifications. But their value needs to be measured by their ability to effectively guide, under penalty of becoming zombie strategic formulators, unconscious slaves of dead economists’ ideas.
This opens up the debate about how much the innovation community actually understands the concepts that underlie the practice. Sometimes it seems that we have engineers who can perfectly design a tube but have never heard of the Euler equation… but that’s a debate for another article.
