Linking Innovation to Strategy, part 3 | The Discipline of Innovation

Linking Innovation to Strategy, part 3

One of the more alarming aspects of the global financial crisis has been the corresponding downturn in innovation-related spending by firms. Obviously, if you lost your job or your house or your retirement savings this issue doesn’t seem so critical, but I think it is important even so. The reason is that future jobs and future prosperity require innovation efforts right now. One of the big challenges in managing innovation is maintaining a portfolio of innovation efforts that cover everything from incremental to radical innovations. One of the tools that we’ve found very useful in doing this is the three horizons model.

The three horizons model was first published in The Alchemy of Growth by Merhdad Baghai, Stephen Coley, and David White in 1999. The fundamental idea behind the model is that we need to be thinking about innovation across three time frames.


When you innovate using the three horizons framework, the first horizon involves implementing innovations that improve your current operations, horizon two innovations are those that extend your current competencies into new, related markets, and horizon three innovations are the ones that will change the nature of your industry. In general, H1 innovations tend to be incremental, while H3 are more often radical innovations. There are several key ideas that arise when using the three horizons model.

The first is that you must have innovation efforts aimed at all three time horizons. If you only look at the exciting transformative H3 innovations, you’ll lose business to current competitors who are using incremental innovations to improve their operations. Consequently, you might have the best ideas for the future, but you’re no longer around to execute them. On the other hand, if you only focus on H1 incremental innovations that make your current business better, you’ll end up being replaced by organisations that are driving disruptive innovations in your field. Using the three horizons framework helps us balance our innovation efforts between incremental and radical, which is important.

The second issue is that horizon 2 is incredibly difficult to manage. H2 innovations seem very similar to your current products and services, and the overpowering temptation is to use the same metrics to assess their success. However, because these ideas are new, it takes time to get them configured effectively. This means that if you treat H2-oriented innovations just like H1-oriented innovations, you are likely to abandon them too quickly because it will seem like they’re not performing well. You have to figure out a way to ringfence H2 innovation efforts.

The final point is that people often mistake the three horizons model for a planning tool – it isn’t. John and I have talked about this before (here and here, to start with)- this is one of the critical mistakes people make when applying this tool. While the diagram has a scale that says ‘time’, it really means ‘information’. This diagram from a UK Foresight report is useful:

The key issue is the amount of information that we have available to plan for the time horizons. So H3 is not ’5 years from now’ – it is ‘a time where we don’t really know what will be happening’. For some industries that might be 25 years down the road, like, well, I can’t think of many good examples actually. For others, that time might be right now – the news industry is a good example of this. Turbulence can compress the three horizons so that we’re dealing with all of them at once. When this happens, it is very chaotic and stressful, but it’s also a time of great opportunity.

If you are using a three horizons type approach to innovation, it becomes clear that you need to continue investing in innovative activities across all three time horizons, even if you’re in the middle of a global financial crisis. To do this effectively, you need to have some idea of where you’re heading in the future, and that’s why I think it’s a useful tool for linking innovation to strategy.

Extra resources:

About Tim Kastelle

Student and teacher of innovation - University of Queensland Business School - links to academic papers, twitter, and so on can be found here.

13 Responses to Linking Innovation to Strategy, part 3

  1. Graham Horton 17 May 2010 at 9:13 pm #

    Thanks for posting this useful article.

    This model fits extremely neatly with
    MacMillan and McGrath’s option model of innovation:


  2. Tim 17 May 2010 at 9:15 pm #

    Thanks for that link Graham – that’s a terrific framework. We’ve talked a bit about real options, but that is beautiful summary post!

  3. Graham Horton 17 May 2010 at 10:20 pm #

    thanks :)

  4. Paul Hobcraft 5 June 2011 at 7:55 pm #

    Just referring back to the frame posted by Graham, interesting but Xerox have adopted this from recent presentations I attended. It seems to be a really good frame for exploring (open) innovation


  1. Combining Ideas – a Key to Innovation « Innovation Strategy « Innovation Leadership Network - 2 January 2010

    [...] the complexity we face is by innovatively connecting ideas. We can try to do this in a way that guides the future of our industry, but to do this we need to figure out what ideas to connect. Where should they come [...]

  2. Building Innovation « Innovation Strategy « Innovation Leadership Network - 2 January 2010

    [...] think there are some useful ideas here for those of us trying to manage innovation. Builders take horizon 3 seriously, and as we’ve said before, that is an essential part of making an innovation strategy. So how [...]

  3. uberVU - social comments - 5 February 2010

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by timkastelle: Blog post – Linking #Innovation to #Strategy, part 3 – using the 3 Horizons model to balance incremental and radical

  4. Innovation for the Long Term « Innovation Strategy « Innovation Leadership Network - 9 February 2010

    [...] have talked about this a few times – the very short description is that the first horizon involves implementing [...]

  5. Quick Thoughts on Innovation « Connect « Innovation Leadership Network - 16 March 2010

    [...] of innovation require different managerial skills. The problem is that we need to be able manage both the more incremental ideas as well as the more game-changing ones. The small innovations keep us competitive now, but the bigger ones keep us in the game as the [...]

  6. McLaren Wins the Innovation Race « Innovation Leadership Network - 13 May 2010

    [...] good way to think about this is using the 3 horizons model – the very short description is that the first horizon involves implementing innovations that [...]

  7. Innovation for Now and for the Future « Innovation Leadership Network - 17 August 2010

    [...] Innovation must be linked to strategy: tools like the 3 Horizons framework are good ways to connect innovation with strategy. As you develop strategy, it will provide some guidance about where you want to end up in the future – you can then orient your H2 & H3 efforts in alignment with these future goals. [...]

  8. Be a HedgeFox! « Innovation Leadership Network - 1 June 2011

    [...] and manage them seperately. Tim and I often use McKinsey’s three horizons and we have both written a number of blog pieces on the [...]

  9. Innovation Big & Small - Innovation Leadership Network - 12 October 2012

    [...] big, and you’re not automatically innovative if you’re small.  The critical issue to figure out how innovation fits with your strategy and then what skills and processes you need to innovate in your particular [...]

Leave a Reply