Data show that for a variety of reasons including M&A activity, legacy and growth into emerging markets, the size of most firms' innovation footprints or networks is increasing. Obviously, the bigger the network, the greater the management, co-ordination and running costs.

Companies tend not to recognize that the way global projects have to be organized and run is fundamentally different from how co-located projects are managed. Everything is different in global projects from the need for organizational stability, a shared strategic context driving the project, the building of a competence in dispersed working, greater focus on planning the project to the need for trust between sites. Yet, most firms merely transfer their co-located best practice to a global arena. This will inevitably result in problems, delays and cost overruns.

Getting global innovation projects right is really important as they create competitive advantage two ways. When the knowledge for an innovation is from different sites around the world, it's very much more difficult for competitors to copy these innovation - they'd have to access the same knowledge from the same places. Secondly, costs and time to market can be significantly reduced leading to first mover advantage through parallel development in global projects.

Implementing any major changes to the way companies operate requires time and determination and the shift to globally integrated innovation is no exception - it calls for new capabilities to be built, changes in the structure of the innovation organization, new systems, processes and mindsets. The scope and scale of this task shouldn't prevent executives from starting down the path of change as the systemic nature of innovation activities means that every single element of change that's brought about will make a difference.

I recall a conversation with the CEO of large electrical equipment MNC in which he began by asking me to guess how many innovation centres his firm had around the world. My guess was nowhere near the 160 that turned out to be the answer. Not surprisingly this CEO recognized that his firm's ability to innovate was being hampered by the huge size of their footprint which brought few benefits as it was inefficient, there was duplication across sites and competition between them. In this and most other cases, the costs of the expanded footprint outweigh the benefits.

Data show that for a variety of reasons including M&A activity, legacy and growth into emerging markets, the size of most firms' innovation footprints or networks is increasing. Obviously, the bigger the network, the greater the management, co-ordination and running costs.

One of the major challenges for modern large-scale organizations - it's vital to find ways to mobilize the collective brainpower of people in these organizations. To think the opposite is naive - even if the image of the 'great man leader' exists the reality doesn't.