Rated Ranking: Most Innovative Companies 2015 (Fast Company)

Most Innovative Companies 2015 (Fast Company)

branding_institute_50_most_innovative_companies_fast_company_post_image

Summary
On February 18th the US monthly magazine, web site, and digital distribution platform “Fast Company” published its annual ranking “World’s Most Innovative Companies”. It differs from other rankings as it is not provided by an external partner, but from the editorial staff of the magazine itself. To create the ranking, Fast Company’s editorial team claims to analyze information on thousands of businesses across the globe. By doing so, Fast Company seek to produce a list that is not just about revenue growth and profit margins, but rather about identifying creative models and progressive cultures – to define the many forms of innovation that exist across the business landscape.

In this respect they are not overpromising: Unlike in other rankings, many of the companies listed in the Top 50 cross-industry list and in the 34 industry sector lists are small and medium-sized, and therefore not (yet) known by non-experts. For example, this year’s Top 5 companies of the cross-industry list are “Cree”, “Solarcity”, “Trevi Systems”, “Airlight Energy” and “Inertech” – according to Fast Company: corporations with highly innovative products and services that one should keep in mind.

While on the one hand this ranking simply provides a new and different perspective on innovation leaders different than the “usual suspects” like Apple or Google that regularly top other innovation rankings, Fast Company’s methodology is merely based on the personal views of Fast Company’s editorial team – and therefore highly subjective. It also irritates that the industry sectors Fast Company assess vary from year to year – which makes comparisons and identifying trends over time impossible.

Summarizing, Fast Company’s “World’s Most Innovative Companies” is a useful ranking to “discover” and learn about innovative stars of the future. But caution is necessary: The companies listed are nothing more than a subjective recommendation of Fast Company’s editorial staff – and they do not provide any reference on how exactly they got there. The methodology and the fact that comparisons and developments over time are not possible are significant disadvantages for interested readers.

You can access the ranking here.

Relevance / Impact
– 13 points –
Added Value / Insights
– 11 points –

Trustworthiness / Intention
– 15 points –
Methodology
– 3 points –

Aggregated points
– 42 (out of 60) –
51–60
points
Highly valuable ranking

41–50
points
Useful ranking with some flaws

30–40
points
Partially useful ranking with considerable flaws

< 30
points
Useless ranking

Reach of publication:

  • Global, e.g. North America, Europe and Asia (5 points)
  • Regional, e.g. Europe or North America (3 points)
  • Large national market: e.g. US, China, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Brazil (2 points)
  • Mid-sized or small market, e.g. Switzerland, Netherlands, Argentina, Singapore (1 point)

Ranking will be recognized by key stakeholders:

  • Opinion Leaders (Politicians, Professors; NGO’s) (2 points)
  • Business Advisory Board, C-Level Executives (CEO, CCO, CFO, CMO) (2 points)
  • High Potentials & Top Talents (employer market, students) (2 points)
  • Financial Market (2 points)
  • General Public (2 points)

Aggregated points: 13 (of max. 15)

Is the owner providing the ranking a credible and trustworthy organization?

  • Ranking owner has limited credibility and reputation. (1 point)
  • Ranking owner has fair credibility and reputation. (3 points)
  • Ranking owner has excellent credibility and reputation. (5 points)

What is the ranking owner’s intention to produce and disseminate the ranking?

  • Ranking is predominantly a tool to raise awareness for the owner with the possible intention to sell consultancy services. (1 point)
  • Ranking is partly a tool to raise awareness for the owner with the possible intention to sell consultancy services. (3 points)
  • Ranking is predominantly a tool to surface and share important insights on the subject surveyed. (5 points)

Is/Are the media outlet(s) where the ranking is published of high credibility and reputation?

  • Media outlet(s) has/have limited credibility and reputation. (1 point)
  • Media outlet(s) has/have fair credibility and reputation. (3 points)
  • Media outlet(s) has/have excellent credibility and reputation. (5 points)

Aggregated points: 15 (of max. 15)

Do the ranking results provide overall orientation where companies stand?

  • limited orientation only (1 point)
  • fair orientation provided (3 points)
  • very good orientation (5 points)

Is the Ranking published in the same format on a regular basis, e.g. annually, which allows to track developments and comparisons over time?

  • ranking is published for the first time (1 point)
  • ranking is published for the second time in the same format (3 points)
  • ranking is published for more than 3 times on a regular basis in the same format (5 points)

Do the ranking results provide added value and further insights on how companies are evaluated in in their industry, e.g. detailed ratings in various sub-dimensions of the overall result?

  • limited added value only (1 point)
  • fair amount of added value (3 points)
  • high amount of added value (5 points)

Aggregated points: 11 (of max. 15)

Is the ranking based on a representative survey among key stakeholders or on a jury only?

  • Ranking is based on a jury’s opinion only. (1 point)
  • Ranking is based on a small survey or only on a limited group of stakeholders. (3 points)
  • Ranking is based on a robust and representative survey. (5 points)

Comments: The methodology is merely based on the personal views of Fast Company’s editorial team – and therefore highly subjective. It also irritates that the industry sectors Fast Company assess vary from year to year – which makes comparisons and identifying trends over time impossible.

Is the ranking methodology easy to understand and reasonable – even for non-statisticians?

  • Methodology not easy to understand and not reasonable. (1 point)
  • Methodology fairly good to understand and reasonable. (3 points)
  • Methodology very easy to understand and reasonable. (5 points)

Is the ranking methodology easy to access and transparent?

  • Methodology not easy to find and not sufficiently transparent. (1 point)
  • Methodology fairly good to find and of medium transparency. (3 points)
  • Methodology very easy to find and of high transparency. (5 points)

Aggregated points: 3 (of max. 15)

Ranking category

  • Product / Service Brands
  • Company Brands
  • Corporate Reputation and Company Esteem
  • Social Responsibility, CSR & Sustainability, Ethical Business Practices
  • Innovation & Technology
  • Employer Attractiveness & Diversity
  • Leadership
  • Nations & Destinations
  • University & Other Institutions
  • Sports
  • Lifestyle
  • Social Media
  • Personal Branding & CEOs

Ranking statistics

  • Name of Ranking: Most Innovative Companies 2015
  • Ranking managed/produced by institute/organization: Fast Company
  • Ranking published by media outlet: Fast Company
  • Date of recent publication: February 18, 2015
  • Date of previous publication: February 22, 2014

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *