Page 1 of 7 - Cover Page Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:92076555
Submission
My Files
My Files
University
Document Details
Submission ID
trn:oid:::29034:92076555 5 Pages
Submission Date 583 Words
Apr 20, 2025, 10:03 PM GMT+5:30
4,113 Characters
Download Date
Apr 20, 2025, 10:03 PM GMT+5:30
File Name
Benchmarking Innovation Processes.docx
File Size
21.6 KB
Page 1 of 7 - Cover Page Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:92076555
Page 2 of 7 - AI Writing Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:92076555
*% detected as AI Caution: Review required.
AI detection includes the possibility of false positives. Although some text in It is essential to understand the limitations of AI detection before making decisions
this submission is likely AI generated, scores below the 20% threshold are not about a student’s work. We encourage you to learn more about Turnitin’s AI detection
capabilities before using the tool.
surfaced because they have a higher likelihood of false positives.
Disclaimer
Our AI writing assessment is designed to help educators identify text that might be prepared by a generative AI tool. Our AI writing assessment may not always be accurate (it may misidentify
writing that is likely AI generated as AI generated and AI paraphrased or likely AI generated and AI paraphrased writing as only AI generated) so it should not be used as the sole basis for
adverse actions against a student. It takes further scrutiny and human judgment in conjunction with an organization's application of its specific academic policies to determine whether any
academic misconduct has occurred.
Frequently Asked Questions
How should I interpret Turnitin's AI writing percentage and false positives?
The percentage shown in the AI writing report is the amount of qualifying text within the submission that Turnitin’s AI writing
detection model determines was either likely AI-generated text from a large-language model or likely AI-generated text that was
likely revised using an AI-paraphrase tool or word spinner.
False positives (incorrectly flagging human-written text as AI-generated) are a possibility in AI models.
AI detection scores under 20%, which we do not surface in new reports, have a higher likelihood of false positives. To reduce the
likelihood of misinterpretation, no score or highlights are attributed and are indicated with an asterisk in the report (*%).
The AI writing percentage should not be the sole basis to determine whether misconduct has occurred. The reviewer/instructor
should use the percentage as a means to start a formative conversation with their student and/or use it to examine the submitted
assignment in accordance with their school's policies.
What does 'qualifying text' mean?
Our model only processes qualifying text in the form of long-form writing. Long-form writing means individual sentences contained in paragraphs that make up a
longer piece of written work, such as an essay, a dissertation, or an article, etc. Qualifying text that has been determined to be likely AI-generated will be
highlighted in cyan in the submission, and likely AI-generated and then likely AI-paraphrased will be highlighted purple.
Non-qualifying text, such as bullet points, annotated bibliographies, etc., will not be processed and can create disparity between the submission highlights and the
percentage shown.
Page 2 of 7 - AI Writing Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:92076555
Page 3 of 7 - AI Writing Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:92076555
Benchmarking Innovation Processes: A Comparative Analysis of 3M for Effective
IoT Integration
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Professor’s name
Course
Date
Page 3 of 7 - AI Writing Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:92076555
Page 4 of 7 - AI Writing Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:92076555
A Comparative Analysis of 3M for Effective IoT Integration
This report compares the organization’s innovation processes with 3M’s to identify key
gaps hindering effective IoT integration. As a middle manager overseeing IoT implementation,
understanding 3M’s successful practices is essential. Benchmarking will guide strategic
improvements, enhance efficiency, and support a culture of sustained innovation and cross-
functional collaboration.
3M’s Innovation Process
3M’s innovation process combines structured mechanisms with cultural flexibility to
drive bottom-up innovation. It emphasizes decentralized decision-making, encouraging
employees across departments to collaborate cross-functionally without excessive bureaucratic
control (Tidd et al., 2013). The firm invests approximately 6% of sales into R&D annually,
supporting long-term innovation with strategic depth (Gundling, 2000). Leadership promotes
autonomy and cultivates a proactive mindset among employees. Key to the enablement process
is 3M’s “15% rule,” which allows staff to allocate time toward personal innovation projects,
supported by robust infrastructure including innovation centers and resource networks that
streamline idea development and implementation across functions.
Key Features Promoting Innovation at 3M
3M’s innovation culture is reinforced through structured recognition systems, including
Innovator’s Awards and patent recognition programs that tie achievement to professional
advancement (Tidd et al., 2013). “Permission to play” is institutionalized—employees are
encouraged to explore ideas without fear of failure, fostering psychological safety and risk-
tolerant thinking. The company’s leadership tolerates mistakes, understanding innovation as a
non-linear, iterative process. Breakthroughs like Post-it Notes took years to develop,
Page 4 of 7 - AI Writing Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:92076555
Page 5 of 7 - AI Writing Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:92076555
exemplifying the organizational patience embedded in its innovation DNA. Mistakes are treated
as essential learning stages, not liabilities, enabling sustainable intrapreneurship and high
innovation velocity in a globally competitive market.
Comparing 3M and the Organization
3M utilizes a decentralized, network-based structure fostering agility, while your
organization is constrained by a tall, matrixed hierarchy where decisions are centralized and
distant from operational teams. 3M enables informal innovation management via grassroots
efforts and employee-led initiatives, in contrast to your firm’s formal, top-down processes
concentrated within functional Centers of Excellence. Communication at 3M is lateral and
collaborative across functions; in your organization, siloed operations and dual-reporting lines
restrict timely information exchange. These structural and cultural differences significantly
impact the pace, origin, and sustainability of innovation, particularly in high-tech areas like IoT.
Process Gaps and Recommendations
The key structural gap is excessive centralization. Your company should adopt cross-
functional innovation task forces with decentralized decision rights to reduce rigidity.
Establishing internal innovation labs and encouraging open-door policies will drive collaborative
problem-solving. The absence of intrinsic incentives for innovation is another barrier—non-
monetary rewards such as internal innovation awards and promotional opportunities, modeled
after 3M’s Innovator’s Awards, should be implemented. Timeline management lacks agility;
thus, project timelines should be audited quarterly using milestone-based assessments. Adopting
agile methodologies in IoT development will enhance responsiveness to technological shifts,
enabling sustained value creation through incremental and potentially discontinuous innovations
(SIKULSKIY et al., 2023).
Page 5 of 7 - AI Writing Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:92076555
Page 6 of 7 - AI Writing Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:92076555
Conclusion
Adopting 3M’s innovation practices—such as decentralized decision-making, recognition
systems, and tolerance for experimentation—can close critical process gaps. Embracing these
methods will strengthen our innovation capabilities and enable agile IoT integration. The
ultimate goal is to cultivate a resilient, innovation-driven culture that supports long-term growth
and technological competitiveness.
Reference
Gundling, E. (2000). The 3M way to innovation: balancing people and profit. (No Title).
Page 6 of 7 - AI Writing Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:92076555
Page 7 of 7 - AI Writing Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:92076555
SIKULSKIY, V., MAIOROVA, K., VOROBIOV, Y., FOMICHEV, P., & MYRONOVA, S.
(2023). Convergence technology for vehicle part surface finishing. Transport
Problems, 18(1), 117-127. https://doi.org/10.20858/tp.2023.18.1.10
Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2005). 3M: Rethinking Innovation.
Page 7 of 7 - AI Writing Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:92076555
