Our informal poll on sources of innovation ideas closes Friday, May 23. So, if you haven’t cast your vote yet you better hurry! You can cast your register your vote using the Vizu poll widget in the side bar on the left.
A new poll will start Monday, May 26.
There are parallels visible in all aspects of life. Recently, my personal experiences in the kitchen served as a reminder of how even small changes can have hidden complexities.
Years ago, based on concerns over the possible connection between aluminum exposure and Alzheimer’s disease, my wife requested that we replace all our aluminum cookware with alternative materials. Most of our pots and pans quickly were replaced with shiny new stainless steel versions. However, one pot remained—a pot which we use for one purpose only. We call it the popcorn pot.
A few weeks ago, we finally got around to buying a replacement for the popcorn pot. We were looking forward to trying out the new vessel, and so it was with great ceremony that we inaugurated the new popcorn pot to be. But, all was not well in the land of popcorn. We followed the ritual popping of the corn ceremony to a tee. It was a disaster. The popcorn was poorly popped, many kernels were singed, and there were far too many unpopped kernels.
You wouldn’t think something as simple as changing the pot would have such profound effects, but the evidence was indisputable and barely edible. Could it be that the change in pot technology was incompatible with our method for popping corn? Could the differences in thickness and diameter of the pot’s base be affecting its cooking properties to such a great degree?
It took many experiments with modification of various parameters to test the new corn popping system. Cooking temperature, preheating the pot, amount of oil used in cooking, and the placement of corn were all varied. The initial experiments were dismal failures. Eventually after we stepped back and examined the functional system of popping corn, our persistence paid off. We found a modified cooking method that worked with the new pot. Even better, the new method produced superior popcorn than we had been able to make with the old pot.
So where is the parallel I previously mentioned? Recently, in talking with press and analysts, the topic of green innovation has been a recurring theme. Many companies are beginning to embrace green programs as important initiatives. Green means different things at each company. In many cases, the emphasis of green is finding alterative resources to replace ones that are non-renewable, toxic, eco-harmful, or otherwise considered not socially responsible. The popcorn pot vignette is a good example in miniature of the challenges these organizations facing in going green.
Consider the situation if you were a snack food manufacturer looking at how to respond to the food versus fuel tension that is growing as a result of growing focus on alternative fuels. Recent mandates in the U.S. have created higher demand for corn oil. If you want to replace corn oil in your products, you will quickly realize how big a change that really is. The impact will of this change will be felt in the supply chain and on the processing line. The change may require alterations in formulation of your product to avoid changes in flavor, texture, and aroma. Packaging will need to be altered. The list goes on and on.
The bottom line is that going green creates many innovation challenges. A strong complementary innovation program is needed to achieve the corporate goal. If effect, you need sustainable innovation practice to drive your sustainability initiative. If green initiatives are pursued in this way, companies will find that going green can be the catalyst which leads to greater operational efficiency and new revenue opportunity.
I am writing a paper to be submitted to the upcoming Japanese TRIZ Symposium. The topic is one that I find very interesting. In short, how do technical advances in computational linguistics change the landscape of innovation practice?
This weekend I sent a draft of an extended abstract to my colleague in Japan to get some feedback on the topic. I was pleased that he liked the topic and the outline for the paper. He also asked for some clarification on two phrases used in the abstract: “information fund” and “accrued global knowledge”. Of course, language differences being what they are, it was no surprise that some questions would arise, but these questions got me to wonder about how many people don’t know about the concept of the Information Fund.
Sometimes referred to as the TRIZ Information Fund, this is a very important concept for all designers, engineers, scientists, and innovators. The idea is really very simple.
In the mid 1940s, an engineer named Genrikh Altshuller had an idea that inventiveness and creativity could be learned. He set out to look for the foundations of creative problem solving by studying the legacy of scientific and engineering invention documented in Russian patents. Through this study, he developed a theory of how problems can be systematically approached and solved inventively. This theory is what is called TRIZ. (Pronounced treez, it is an acronym for the Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadatch which is roughly translated as the theory of inventive problem solving.)
However, as Altshuller worked on his theory, he recognized that having a disciplined approach to innovation was not sufficient to solving problems, nor was having tools such as the inventive principles. He understood that problem solvers needed knowledge of facts -- facts like Bernoulli’s principle or that Sun move from east to west. It is the notion that there exists a body of global knowledge, that scientific and engineering knowledge that is currently known, which is referred to as the information fund.
Of course, Altshuller wasn’t the first person to recognize the importance of learning from those who have gone before us. In a 1676 letter to Robert Hooke, it was Sir Isaac Newton who wrote, “If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” This is the reality of every great innovation.
This is why the Information Fund is so important. In the past, the notion of tapping into accrued global knowledge was impractical. Individuals had to rely on their personal resources to collect information that they could use. Time and technology have changed all that. We live in the information age, and the notion of amassing such a vast collection of leveragable knowledge is not only conceivable, it is a practical reality.
When considering how to construct the architecture your organization’s innovation infrastructure, particular attention should be given to how you have equipped knowledge workers to leverage the information fund. If you are not looking at this seriously, you will be operating at a severe disadvantage compared to leading organizations that are already putting this knowledge into action.
Seth Godin makes an interesting observation in his post today titled “Avoiding the Passion Pop Gulf.” The basic idea being that there are mainstream markets (the Pop arena) and niche markets (the Passion arena). Companies can succeed by targeting the sweet spot of either of these domains. Where they encounter problems is when they find themselves caught in that uncomfortable gray space between the two. In this region, the product lacks the critical mass of attributes to gain traction with either audience.
This concept has a lot of implication as we consider the tension between incremental and radical innovation.
Incremental innovation is targeted at our existing customers. While necessary, it is often viewed as safe and consequently boring. Yet, a company can do extremely well if they are really good at responding to the needs of these “pop” clients for whose market requirements drive the incremental innovation agenda.
Radical innovation usually first targets the leading edge niche clients that will define the future mainstream market. At this early stage, they are akin to the Passion arena that Seth identifies. They have special requirements that if met can create significant value. When the products for these markets can be made attractive to the mainstream customer, the value potential is even greater.
It is often here that companies get trapped. The allure of the value of the leading edge market draws companies toward radical innovation, but the comfort and value potential of the mainstream market pull companies away from the requirements of the leading edge companies. This can result in a watered down innovation—one that is too different for the mainstream client to adopt and yet is not distinct enough to get a solid following among the leading edge clientele.
The prescription to avoid this no man’s land… Be clear on the objectives of each innovation effort. Whether it is intended to be an incremental or radical innovation, keep true to the intent. Don’t try and mix the two. It is very difficult to take a radical innovation successfully to a mainstream audience until you have first successfully delivered it to your targeted early adopters.
For those of us who did not make it to TRIZCON2008, a neat paper by Jim Belfiore has been published on the TRIZ Journal site. This paper is a good read and presents a novel take on applying some TRIZ concepts to the task of analyzing companies for possible M&A interest. Take a look and share your thoughts on this interesting piece.
Continuing with our discussion of how to build a strong and sustainable innovation culture and program, here are some of the foundational elements that must be addressed to achieve the transformation from accidental innovator to high performance innovation leader. While I will discuss each of these in more depth separately, at a summary level the key factors which must not be ignored (I call these the five pillars of sustainable innovation practice deployment):
Executive Leadership
This is a concept that cannot be overstated. It all starts at the top. Unfortunately, many CEO’s don’t seem to understand what this means and the importance of this to there mission of building corporate value. All too often, the battle cry of innovation rings out, but the top brass fails to follow up with highly visible and tangible involvement in the innovation initiative. The assumption is made that once the priority is identified, it will take care of itself. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In order to take root, the innovation program requires constant care and feeding from the top of the organization.
Skill Development
One of the great tragedies in innovation is the widespread belief that innovation just happens—somehow some bright person gets an idea out of nowhere. What a crock this is, but this is what many people believe. The reality is that innovation is a process. It is a process that can be learned and mastered. Organizations need to understand this and develop the training and resource development programs to build innovation process skills as a core competency in the product research and development teams.
Innovation Infrastructure
Another interesting aspect of the innovation process is that it can be influenced environmentally. By this I am referring to two things in specific. The mastery and correct application of the process can be greatly aided by the use of an innovation platform that reinforces the application of innovation best practices. Also, great innovations happen when the insightful domain expert meets with the confluence of relevant knowledge and it thus able to synthesize something new. With this realization, it should be apparent that the proper use of information technology to help place the innovation worker at the apex of relevant and actionable knowledge when and how they need it is a powerful way to drive the success of innovation efforts.
Network for Innovation Mentoring & Facilitation
There are many aspects to innovation best practices. There are many types of innovation problems. Different problems yield more readily to different solution paradigms. Some types of innovation tasks are performed frequently. Other innovation tasks are only undertaken occasionally. Each innovation worker has a different role to play in the organization. This variability leads to the conclusion that organization über-process must recognize that innovation skills will not be uniformly distributed in the organization. This means that innovation leaders must be leveraged within the enterprise to help knowledge workers bridge the gap between personal innovation skill level and problem solving skill need. An organizational structure to maintain and optimize the leverage of a mentoring and facilitation network is required.
Internal Promotion
People need to see that the efforts of the enterprise are having a meaningful impact. Designers want to know that their efforts are making a contribution to the corporate goal. Executives need to see the return on the investment in innovation. These and other messages of enfranchisement must be constantly communicated and reinforced. A properly executed internal marketing campaign will go a long way to maintain momentum in the innovation program and foster champions of innovation across the enterprise.
These are the critical success factor I have seen that make a difference across a wide variety of industries in successfully deploying an innovation culture. What have you seen?
Next time, we’ll dig a bit deeper into the topic of executive leadership.
Have you noticed the growing coverage in the press about green innovation? It seems you can’t turn around without bumping into yet another article about a company that is trying to associate itself with the green movement. But all this green innovation is putting a lot of pressure on organizations.
It’s not as though innovation was not already a key priority for business. Changes in the global competitive landscape, aging products and intellectual property, brain drain driven by generational workforce turnover, and an unstable economic climate are all factors that have raised innovation to the forefront of the C-exec consciousness. Now add to the list the pressure to be green.
The drivers of green innovation within companies can very quite a bit. For some, it is forced upon them by governmental regulators. For other, shareholder or popular sentiment creates an overwhelming tsunami of demand that must be answered.
Whatever the reason your organization is looking at moving in the direction of eco-social responsibility, the question that one is inevitably faced with remains the same. How can greenness be achieved in a manner that is compatible with other corporate goals of growth and profitability? Many companies are struggling with this question right now. How can you find the path to green that doesn’t cause you to bleed red?
The path begins with understanding what greenness mean to you. Why are you becoming a green organization? What are the areas of the green agenda that map to your type of business? Do you consume or produce toxic materials in your current production methods? Does your product have a poor profile with respect to reuse or disposability? Is your product over packaged? Are you contributing to the growing food versus fuel crisis? Of what other environmental transgressions is your organization guilty?
Once you have identify the specific opportunities to improve your eco-friendly posture, this is where the power of sustainable innovation best practice can help you navigate through the shoals of poor return on investment and find your way to the deep waters of value driving innovation. Do you need to find a suitable replacement for CFCs? Is development of biofuel technology on the agenda? Do you simply want to find a way to reduce the amount of packaging you use but improve the protective properties of your products packaging?
Whatever the issue, the proper application of innovation practices and tools will lead you quickly to the right solution that meets both your green goals and your business needs.
Based on the results of our last informal innovation survey, it seems that how to build a healthy innovation culture that supports sustainable innovation and drives corporate value is a question worthy of discussion. I’d like to begin that discussion with some comments on what factors often get in the way of building a strong innovation culture.
There are of course many roadblocks in the way of any large cultural change, but in my conversations with people that have innovation or product delivery responsibility in various Global 2000 firms, there are a few that show up consistently. The top four innovation culture inhibitors are: insufficient enfranchisement, institution inertia, lack of executive support, and lack of investment. Here is what I mean by each of these items.
Insufficient Enfranchisement
This is a very important but sometimes difficult to diagnose malady. It can be hard to spot because it doesn’t necessarily manifest itself as overt resistance to cultural change. Rather, individuals don’t feel connected to the organizational goal, and thus don’t pursue the goal with the desired alacrity. In the nascent stages of building a new culture, this can be an initiative killer. This is why any program to build a strong and sustainable innovation culture must consider how to strongly enfranchise all constituencies.
Institutional Inertia
We have all heard the expression “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” This maxim is anathema to anyone trying to build an innovation culture. Organizations have many systems in place. These systems are usually deeply rooted, and from the perspective of current practitioners, they are not broken at all. Yet, these same systems often stand in the way of the new order because they do not embrace the demands of the new objectives of sustainable innovation.
Lack of Executive Support
Here is a great paradox of innovation. We consistently see innovation at or near the top of the C-exec agenda. Yet time and time again, we hear from innovation workers that they don’t feel the support of management. How can this be? The answer can be one of many situations. Here are a few of them.
Lack of Investment
Establishing a new culture takes both diligence and investment. Whether it is investment of people, time, or treasure, the initiative cannot success if it is starved of resources.
It is easy to see that all of these issues can hamper the establishment of an innovation culture. Are these the issues you have seen? What others are in your way?
I was just looking over my calendar and just noticed that the Annual PDMA Front End of Innovation Conference is just a little over a month away. This is always an interesting conference with terrific presentations by industry practitioners. This year, the event is being held May 19 – 21 at the Boston World Trade Center.
Let me know if you are planning on going. It would be great to see you there.
Now that our first informal innovation poll has closed, what do the results say? A few interesting things can be seen in the results. First, here are the raw results in response to the question, “What do you find is the hardest innovation challenge?”
The message is pretty clear. The hard work of building a sustainable innovation culture is by far what you find the most difficult of innovation challenges.
There is quite a lot to be said on this topic, and I think we could have some very interesting dialog around this topic. So, this will be the main topic here for the next couple of weeks. I hope you’ll all join in and contribute to I think will be a most interest thread of posts.
I hope you’ll also take a look at the next innovation poll too. This time the question is around what sources of innovation ideas you find most valuable.
