INNOVATION FOR SMEs: A PRACTICAL GUIDE

The Kennedy Company welcomes a guest contributor, University of Queensland Professor Tim Kastelle, Director of the Andrew N. Liveris Academy for Innovation and Leadership.

In today’s dynamic business environment, innovation is widely recognised as a key driver of growth and resilience. Yet for many small to medium enterprises (SMEs), the concept can feel abstract, or something reserved for tech giants or startups in Silicon Valley. In reality, innovation is not only within reach for SMEs, it is often already happening informally and organically. The opportunity lies in recognising it, testing it, and leveraging it to create value.

What exactly is innovation in the context of SMEs?

Ask 30 experts what innovation means, and you’re likely to receive 30 different definitions. For me, a practical definition of innovation for SMEs is:

Innovation is the execution of new ideas to create value.

This broad framing works across industries and organisational sizes- from global corporations to local businesses and community organisations. Crucially, it places emphasis not on the novelty of the idea, but on the act of delivering tangible value.

Innovation is not about being the first to think of something. It is about being the first to do something, then connecting that action meaningfully with your stakeholders, whether they be customers, funders or suppliers.

Innovation in practice: Insights from Queensland SMEs

During a series of workshops I conducted with Business Chamber Queensland, we met with SMEs right across Queensland.

At these workshops, we asked attendees to reflect on innovation in their own operations.

We asked them to describe situations where they had to change their operations or ideas to respond to a crisis, and when they had to change to respond to an opportunity.

Many of these businesses shared examples of adaptions they made during the COVID-19 pandemic, or changes they made in response to market volatility like exchange rate changes or supply chain disruption.

When asked how they innovated to respond to an opportunity, we heard of businesses launching new products, adopting AI tools, or reimagining service delivery models to better serve their clients.

For me, these discussions revealed two key insights:

  • Most SMEs are already innovating, often without labelling it as such.
  • Innovation is not limited to new product development. It includes rethinking processes, service models, communication methods, business models, and customer engagement strategies.

What enables innovation in SMEs?

In my experience and certainly as we saw reflected in the workshops, there are three conditions that are crucial for fostering innovation in SMEs:

  1. A sense of agency
    SMEs have a structural advantage: fewer layers of hierarchy and more autonomy to act. Unlike employees in large corporations who may be several tiers removed from decision-making, SME leaders can move quickly and decisively.
  2. Resource access and mobilisation
    Innovation requires more than ideas; it needs access to the skills, tools, and financial resources required to turn concepts into reality.
  3. Clarity on customer and stakeholder needs
    Understanding the needs of customers, partners, and suppliers is essential. Innovation is only valuable if it addresses a clearly defined demand or improves outcomes for the people who matter most.

The cost of not innovating

Globally, data shows that approximately 40–60 per cent of organisations engage in some form of innovation. This leaves a significant proportion of businesses, potentially up to 60 per cent operating without active innovation strategies.

The risk of not innovating is clear. Every SME operates within a broader business ecosystem. Whether you’re a local service provider or a component supplier in a global supply chain, your operating context is subject to continuous change. Without innovation, businesses risk becoming misaligned with evolving market needs.

Innovation enables continuous adaptation. Without it, the sustainability of current business models becomes increasingly uncertain, which is a risky position in any industry.

Building your innovation strategy

Innovation, at its core is a series of well-designed experiments. An effective SME innovation strategy does not need to be complex. My advice is to focus on testing and experimenting with changes to your service delivery, customer experience, internal processes, pricing or even how you communicate or engage with stakeholders.

Successful innovation strategies begin with awareness of your own business and knowing where innovation is needed most. From there, test and learn and adapt as you go.

Identify a challenge you are facing, or an opportunity you would like to make the most of. Design a small experiment, measure the results and see what happens.

For example, if improving customer service is a priority, a business might test a new communication channel or service standard. You might commit to responding to all enquiries within 3 hours.

Give it a try and then evaluate its impact on customer satisfaction.

Navigating global trends: the role of digital tools and AI

Digital transformation is a prominent trend, and AI offers exciting possibilities for SMEs. However, it is critical to proceed with a clear strategy.

Digitising a process that is already ineffective will not solve underlying issues. In fact, automation can compound inefficiencies if applied to broken systems.

Before adopting digital tools, SMEs should ensure they have a clear business strategy and defined value proposition and their core processes are functioning as they should be.

Only then will digital tools, whether CRM platforms, AI-powered chatbots, or data analytics, enhance rather than hinder performance.

How important is AI right now?

While AI is a powerful tool, it has limitations. It can generate insights and automate tasks, but it lacks human intuition, empathy, and the ability to form genuine connections. These are attributes that SMEs can and should continue to leverage.

AI should be seen as a support tool and not a replacement for strategic thinking or relationship-building.

My top tips for SME Innovation

  1. Clarify who your key stakeholders are.
    Understand who matters most (customers, suppliers, regulators) and what they are trying to achieve.
  2. Define the value you deliver.
    Innovation should enhance the value you provide. Without clarity on what stakeholders value, it’s impossible to innovate meaningfully.
  3. Build your experimentation capability.
    Encourage a culture of low-risk experimentation. Test assumptions, measure outcomes, and adapt based on evidence.

Innovation doesn’t require radical disruption. Rather, it is best understood as an ongoing process of learning and refinement. In this way, SMEs can reduce risk, respond effectively to change, and unlock new opportunities for sustainable growth.

Source: Business Chamber Queensland, https://businesschamberqld.com.au/article/innovation-for-smes-a-practical-guide/
Retrieved 8 July, 2025

BEYOND SILICON VALLEY: RE-THINKING HIGH-TECH INNOVATION DISTRICTS – SUMMARY

Dr. John H Howard, Narelle Kennedy AM

Everywhere wants to be the next Silicon Valley, a rich concentration of advanced technology enterprises, entrepreneurs, world-class universities, and researchers, attracting global talent and investment, quality jobs, and high-growth industries.

Promotion of high-tech innovation districts, precincts and hubs is a favoured strategy of economic development professionals and organisations. They are vital innovation ecosystems, fostering creative and entrepreneurial endeavours, enhancing economic prosperity, and achieving urban and civic renewal.

However, while innovation districts represent economic vitality and progress, they also have significant and often unrecognised shortcomings that undermine social wellbeing and cohesion.

It is time for more robust questioning of high-tech innovation districts and similar clusters, marshalling the research on their common pitfalls and finding ways to redress these deficiencies.

It is time for re-thinking place-based innovation policies, the essential feature of which is connecting economic development with community development.

Scepticism about Silicon Valley

A range of researchers argue that there are limitations to the positive spillover effects of Silicon Valley as a high-tech innovation district. This is the case despite Silicon Valley’s wider economic benefits from fostering research-rich entrepreneurial start-ups, new jobs and industries and creating tech giants like Apple.

They point to significant inequities: wealth concentration among a small elite; high housing costs; environmental stress from excessive energy consumption and waste generation; and wage stagnation for non-tech workers.

The economic benefits are not universally shared, and employment opportunities are skewed towards those with high educational attainments, widening the gap between skilled and unskilled workers (Florida, 2017; Glaeser, 2011; Markusen, 1996; Autor, 2015; Bulkeley et al, 2011; Moretti, 2012).

Other commentators like Tom Foremski, the publisher of SiliconValleyWatch.com, argue that innovation is restricted as Silicon Valley has become insular. While Silicon Valley is a place where start-ups can scale their business, it is no longer the place for sourcing innovative ideas, because of its “self-segregated business park monoculture”.

He contends that Silicon Valley employment practices insulate their people from everyday struggles, resulting in essentially frictionless, predictable living for Silicon Valley creatives. Hence, no motivation for original ideas generated by experiences of diversity and adversity.

Gentrification

Another downside of high-tech innovation districts is that they trigger gentrification. 

Housing costs and property values are elevated by new infrastructure investment and by the influx of high-income knowledge workers and their high paying jobs. This can be exacerbated by speculative investment and by local decision-making favouring corporate interests.  

The effect is that longstanding residents, often lower income families, are displaced as rents and essential service costs increase. (Lees, Slater and Wyly, 2018; Fields, 2015).

Social Inequality & Exclusion

Innovation districts aim for major economic restructuring and are disruptive by definition. They seek to transform places and to create new jobs, industries, skills and opportunities, consequently attracting newcomers different from the existing population.

Inevitably, a two-tier labour market emerges, where high-income professionals and low-income service workers co-exist but with disparate economic and social prospects.

Inequality is also evident in the disproportionate focus on advanced technologies and new-to-the-world breakthroughs, and the influence of already powerful interests, like property developers, in shaping the composition of innovation districts. Little attention is paid to non-technological innovation and the ingenuity of mainstream businesses. (Brown & Greenbaum,2017).

Finally, innovation districts are typically judged on economic and commercial returns, to the exclusion of social innovation and benefits to the wider population. (Bourdieu, 1986; Granovetter. 1973).

Loss of Community Identity

Innovation districts are rarely initiated or controlled by local people. They feature global businesses and a mobile cosmopolitan population with different socioeconomic profiles to the local community.

Global retail chains and brands replace local traditions, landmarks and businesses, diluting local and indigenous cultures and distinctiveness (Shaw & Hagemans, 2015; Zukin,1995, 2010).

There is a loss of a sense of belonging. Invisible assets like community relationships, values, and local vernacular are diminished. The collective cultural memory and sense of place fade, replaced by a narrative of tech-driven progress and competitiveness (Harvey, 2008). Existing residents, lacking the financial or educational capital to adapt, become cultural ‘outsiders’ in their neighbourhoods (Butler, 2007; Slater, 2006).

Saving Innovation Districts

Innovation districts can still drive economic growth and prosperity but should not do so at the expense of social equity and community cohesion.

Rather than abandoning innovation districts, they require a re-think. Building on their foundation aims of boosting place-based economic development, innovation districts should expand their remit to advance community and social wellbeing also.

Action is recommended on three fronts:

  • Invest in innovation at the level of the enterprise and the workforce. Build their innovation management capabilities for solving problems and responding to opportunities that matter to customers and communities. Don’t be satisfied just with increasing the supply of advanced technologies.
  • Ensure the benefits of innovation reach beyond knowledge workers and creatives to the wider population, including those most likely to become the casualties of economic disruption. Start by including the everyday economy and essential workers as a key target in innovation strategies, as a cross-over between economic and community development plans. Participate in projects on place-based capital and community wealth building.
  • Promote use of social and community wellbeing measures in evaluating economic development projects in high-tech innovation districts. Emphasise local community engagement and co-design. A useful tool is the Cities and Regions Wellbeing Index for 2024 by SGS Economics and Planning.

The aim is not to copy Silicon Valley, but to create and sustain vibrant innovation districts that are great places to work, live and play.

Jointly authored by Dr John H Howard and Narelle Kennedy AM, this is a summary of their article published in the Economic Development Australia Journal: Volume 17, No 2 in August 2024Beyond Silicon Valley: re-thinking high-tech innovation districts