Really interesting. Thank you for sharing this Anthony. When you consider the % split between the three horizons, is this in terms of financial investment? If so, I guess the absolute size of the innovation budget will drive the %s to a degree - i.e., there will be a minimum level of investment needed to make activity in any one horizon viable/worthwhile. Also, I am pondering whether these horizons could also help in organisational design - i.e. deciding which types of role/function should lead on activity in each horizon. For example, in a university setting I would say academics/researchers would lead on Horizon 3 activities, whereas Professional Services teams would lead on Horizon 1 activities. Would welcome your thoughts on this.
Many thanks for taking the time to write this post. There are so many things that I would like to comment on.
Up formation in 2001 there were parts of QinetiQ that did use technology of horizons for business planning. The Alchemy of Growth was obligatory reading. Frank Rozelaar, who at the time was Technical Director of Sensors and Electronics was the protagonist. Reflectively we were using horizon 1 logic whilst in reality we were in horizon 2 and we were in engineering uncertainty. In that period I did do a lot of project recovery work…
The descriptions you propose for uncertainty really do work well for me. I also really like the concept of -2 and -1 horizons. -2 because a number of businesses I’ve worked with have carried large (uncontrolled) technical debt and -1 as I interpret this as recoverable opportunities lost.
I do see a number of challenges (tractable) where this framework could help.
Horizon 2 to 1. I’ve been doing some work with an academic partner to look at systematic methods of identifying exploitation opportunities for some research. Previously my experience has been this is largely a serendipitous process. Do I meet the right person at the right time?
The horizons 1, 0 and -1 are really interesting. It needs an open mindset and it needs creatively / innovation on how to deliver.
Interesting. This reminds me of my work on combined Technology+Commercial Not-Readiness Levels - a clearer indicator of what a solution is and isn't capable off to remove ambiguity over 'realistic environment', 'generating revenues' etc. This also speaks to technical capability but not business capability, which oft gets overlooked however unless a technology can produce profits it cannot sustain itself, its development, its supply. There are ways to weave in the commercials as much as technology.
Very happy to, and for any improvements and thoughts
It hypothosises that
1 Capabilities are integrations of technologies which serve a job to be done, ala Christensen
2 Technologies start at high margin premium small market solutions to the job to be done, with concessions and caveat that need to be accommodate and loved with
3 they move down a cost reduction curve, usual economies of scale
4 the job to be done can be done better and technologies move back to the start, with a better way to deliver the job to be done.
5 new products emerge as these orbits interact and intersect for their market
Wonder if blending those horizons into a Wardley Map could be helpful for a super workshop (manual) tool.
Also - H1&2 might repeat (orbit?) - eg in older estates as submerged risk resurfaces around sunset.
Disposability would occlude technical debt - but longevity can loop H1 back to H2.
Prelim, design and operational Assurance Gates in EA or Sys Eng often try to ensure engineering, usable/exploitation, operational and resource/skill risk elements will/can suffice, while commitment progresses down the lifecycle water slides…
Enjoyed reading this, and it’s prompted me to think about where our work sits within those horizons, not necessarily in terms of budgetary allocations, but more in terms of distribution of priorities and time to realisation. I’ll share and welcome your thoughts to shape these.
Really interesting. Thank you for sharing this Anthony. When you consider the % split between the three horizons, is this in terms of financial investment? If so, I guess the absolute size of the innovation budget will drive the %s to a degree - i.e., there will be a minimum level of investment needed to make activity in any one horizon viable/worthwhile. Also, I am pondering whether these horizons could also help in organisational design - i.e. deciding which types of role/function should lead on activity in each horizon. For example, in a university setting I would say academics/researchers would lead on Horizon 3 activities, whereas Professional Services teams would lead on Horizon 1 activities. Would welcome your thoughts on this.
Many thanks for taking the time to write this post. There are so many things that I would like to comment on.
Up formation in 2001 there were parts of QinetiQ that did use technology of horizons for business planning. The Alchemy of Growth was obligatory reading. Frank Rozelaar, who at the time was Technical Director of Sensors and Electronics was the protagonist. Reflectively we were using horizon 1 logic whilst in reality we were in horizon 2 and we were in engineering uncertainty. In that period I did do a lot of project recovery work…
The descriptions you propose for uncertainty really do work well for me. I also really like the concept of -2 and -1 horizons. -2 because a number of businesses I’ve worked with have carried large (uncontrolled) technical debt and -1 as I interpret this as recoverable opportunities lost.
I do see a number of challenges (tractable) where this framework could help.
Horizon 2 to 1. I’ve been doing some work with an academic partner to look at systematic methods of identifying exploitation opportunities for some research. Previously my experience has been this is largely a serendipitous process. Do I meet the right person at the right time?
The horizons 1, 0 and -1 are really interesting. It needs an open mindset and it needs creatively / innovation on how to deliver.
Would love to explore this further.
Interesting. This reminds me of my work on combined Technology+Commercial Not-Readiness Levels - a clearer indicator of what a solution is and isn't capable off to remove ambiguity over 'realistic environment', 'generating revenues' etc. This also speaks to technical capability but not business capability, which oft gets overlooked however unless a technology can produce profits it cannot sustain itself, its development, its supply. There are ways to weave in the commercials as much as technology.
thank you ... can you post a link to this work
Very happy to, and for any improvements and thoughts
It hypothosises that
1 Capabilities are integrations of technologies which serve a job to be done, ala Christensen
2 Technologies start at high margin premium small market solutions to the job to be done, with concessions and caveat that need to be accommodate and loved with
3 they move down a cost reduction curve, usual economies of scale
4 the job to be done can be done better and technologies move back to the start, with a better way to deliver the job to be done.
5 new products emerge as these orbits interact and intersect for their market
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/technology-orbits-framework-roy-williamson/?trackingId=RoNONOCIQYy%2FFFcherueFQ%3D%3D
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15D-QQzn3jmoTpnnL440IBQmGCyKev5U1/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=110010574835905531880&rtpof=true&sd=true
Wonder if blending those horizons into a Wardley Map could be helpful for a super workshop (manual) tool.
Also - H1&2 might repeat (orbit?) - eg in older estates as submerged risk resurfaces around sunset.
Disposability would occlude technical debt - but longevity can loop H1 back to H2.
Prelim, design and operational Assurance Gates in EA or Sys Eng often try to ensure engineering, usable/exploitation, operational and resource/skill risk elements will/can suffice, while commitment progresses down the lifecycle water slides…
Enjoyed reading this, and it’s prompted me to think about where our work sits within those horizons, not necessarily in terms of budgetary allocations, but more in terms of distribution of priorities and time to realisation. I’ll share and welcome your thoughts to shape these.