Innovating To Win

Don’t Wait To Innovate

It is always nice to see one’s own experience confirmed in the observations of others.  So, I was doubly gratified to read Jeffery Phillips post “Hurry up and wait” on his Innovation On Purpose blog. 

Here, Jeffery confirms the conclusions I had drawn in my post “Time For Innovation” that there is a hunger for software solutions to help with the challenges of innovation.  He also observes that many companies are very aware of the need they have for innovation, but these same companies are not ready to convert that awareness into action.

This is exactly why companies need to develop the discipline of “Practicing For Successful Innovation.”  If an organization does not develop the core competence of innovation practice, then it will not know how to move when the need arises to respond to a critical market challenge.  The High Performance Innovation Organization is one where innovation best practices are woven into the fabric of daily routine.  Thus when the call to arms is sounded, the response is natural and efficient.

This stands in sharp contrast to the situation Jeffery describes.  Sadly, this later situation is all too common.  Companies taken on conservative market protecting measures because it is all they know how to do.  Even the companies that understand that the true path to success lies in eating their own lunch before the competition does will not follow this path if they don’t understand how.

Innovation Payback - Think Holistically

In "Innovation Payback" on her TRIZ for the Real World blog, Ellen Domb has published a review of Payback: Reaping the Rewards of Innovation by James P. Andrew and Harold L. Sirkin.  Ellen observes the recent trend to draw a line dividing creativity and innovation to refer to the human and business sides of the equation.  In closing her commentary, she notes that she work on the side of the equation that the authors say is not a problem (“research says that there are plenty of good ideas, the problem is making money”).

This book sounds like an interesting read.  But, I don't feel comfortable with the dichotomization of innovation into the domains of the human and business side.  All too often in an attempt to simplify complex issues, people fail to understand issues properly because they eschew a more holistic view.  Very often, this seems to be the case in the world of innovation.

The human and business sides of the equation are inexorably linked.  One can not find an allopathic approach for one side of the equation with out considering the whole system.  (This is, after all, part of what TRIZ thinking teaches us; right, Ellen?)

There is no surfeit of good ideas that designers and engineers are burdened with.  If there were, the conversion rate of ideas to successful product would be much greater than it is.  The management of the business side of the equation must be linked with the creative side of the innovation cycle.  When the symbiotic relationship between the two sides of innovation is denied, success can not be achieved.

Innovation and Design Intent

The path of innovation is anything but smooth.  There are many ruts along the way: resistance to change, not-invented-here syndrome, indifference, faltering organizational commitment, weak innovation practices, and many others.  But even when all else goes right, the flickering ember of a great idea can be snuffed out by failure to communicate the idea effectively.

This unnecessary demise of ideas can happen in many ways.  One idea is squelched because a manager doesn’t understand what makes the idea special.  Another concept is defeated when a downstream design modification thwarts the concept by eliminating a crucial attribute of the design.  Several great ideas sit unused because people don’t quite understand how they apply to their situations.  In all these cases, there is a common thread: the intent of the design has not been communicated.  Communication of design intent can help prevent these situations. 

What is design intent?  It is the captured knowledge of what a system is supposed to do, how it is intended to work, and why design decisions were made.  Through design intent, the intended function of the system is expressed, and the rationale for how that function is or is not satisfied is explained. 

While this might sound simple enough, the facts are that very few organizations have a defined mechanism for capturing design intent.  Consider the average manufacturing company.  Their PDM systems are packed with 2D and 3D models and simulations.  These systems are great for addressing certain functions, but they do nothing to explain the “why” of the design.  Ask these same companies where they capture design intent in their PDM, and you will be greeted by blank stares.

It is a shame that many good ideas die an early death because they are not properly communicated.  When the rationale and value of ideas is not captured and communicated, it is not possible to make informed decisions as to the fitness of the concepts.  If this basic information is not preserved, future workers will be baffled by the mysteries embodied in a system which incorporates the idea.

Since a critical step in becoming a high performance innovation organization is developing the capabilities to leverage internal experience, it is necessary to have a well defined means to capture and to communicate design intent.  There are many ways to do this, and some are best suited to specific tasks.  For example in organizations that must report to highly quality-sensitive clients, annotated root cause analysis reports are often used to communicate with clients.  In some organizations, system functional models are used to capture the functional design intent of a system so that it can be readily understood by downstream engineers.  Whatever mechanism you select for your purpose, you should make sure that it is concise, unambiguous, and easily communicated to others.  Effort that is invested in creating and collecting such information will pay great dividends.

[Mr. Boffo courtesy of Neatly Chiseled Features. (Thanks, Joe.)]

Innovation and Web X.0

Daniel Scocco, author of the InnovationZen blog, asks “Does the semantic web deserve to be called Web 3.0?”  This is an interesting question deserving some broader examination.

The term Web 3.0 has been used in association with the W3C semantic web initiative for quite a while now.  The term has already gained some traction in the venture community where people are always looking for the next big thing to chase after with lemming-like efficiency.  Does the W3C semantic web deserve this moniker?  Only time will tell, but I suspect it will suffer the same gradual decline in to obscurity that the much ballyhooed arrival of DTDs did in the past for many of the same reasons.  I think a more interesting question is “Who cares?”  The novelty of labeling things <noun phrase> X.0 has long worn off, and the continued practice gets in the way of informed dialog around core issues of value. 

Consider, if you will, the current Web 2.0 area.  The term Web 2.0 was coined by my friend Tim O’Reilly to define a particular shift in the paradigm of how applications are defined by control of the data and the associated phenomena and implications of that shift.  The term not only stuck, but it took on a life of its own.  However despite the glamour and buzz around Web 2.0, the reality on the ground is not so pretty.  I attended a recent MIT Enterprise Forum of Cambridge event, “Brave New Web: Connect. Contribute. Collaborate.”, focused on Web 2.0.  A few themes emerged very rapidly:

• Practitioners in the space are struggling because the monetizability of user contributed content is unproven.  This issue was recently mentioned in a New York Times article.



• Attention drawn to the model is undeserved because the few-and-far-between mega deals that attract notice are temporal anomalies resulting from the current web turf war as a handful of key players fight to carve up the landscape.



• Most practitioners would like to find a path away from the consumer facing space and in to the commercial facing space where they believe greater potential for viable revenue models exists.

It is always tempting to plant the flag on what we perceive as new territory.  But, it is important to not become trapped by such meaningless conventions.  We should understand that all the things we have seen in the evolution of the web are just that, evolutionary steps, and nothing more.  The web will continue to evolve at an increasingly brisk pace.  There are many new web trends that have emerged since the term Web 2.0 was first uttered, and many more are coming.  The web today is not what the web tomorrow will be.  How will we deal with so many iterations?  Can we look forward to Web XP?  I hope we can do better.

Time For Innovation

“The wise man doesn't give the right answers, he poses the right questions.”
-- Claude Levi-Strauss

What happens when poorly formed questions are matched with weak analysis?  The answer to this question can be seen in Langdon Morris’ Permanent Innovation blog.  In “Innovation Champions and Networks Survey”, the results of a survey of exploring the roles of innovation champions and networks are summarized.  The two key points presented are that the need for time to work on ideas is paramount and that software tools for innovation are not important.  However, a careful analysis of the details of the survey reveals a much more interesting picture than either the post or published results present.

Looking at the details of the survey, we find that over 75% of respondents characterize the innovation champions as somewhat to not effective.  This suggests that there are deep problems within organizations in the implementation of innovation initiatives.  Respondents do identify time as an important factor.  Fully 51.9% of respondents indicate that insufficient time is a key weakness in their company’s program, and 72% of respondents say they should be given more time for innovation if the situation is to improve.  Clearly, Langdon is correct in identifying that the need for time to work on ideas is critical.  What is missed is the relationship between the time element and the rest of the survey results.

When assessing the usefulness of tools to the innovation process, Internet or Intranet web sites were identified as highly useful with 69.9% of respondents giving this tool a rating of 4 or 5 (on a scale of 1 to 5)—second only to time to work on ideas.  This is not surprising as concept generation is where the innovation rubber meets the problem solving road.  For most enterprises, conventional Internet or Intranet search tools are the only tools available to perform independent concept sourcing.  Unfortunately, these tools are largely ineffective.  (Try a Google search on “heavy metal” and observe how many irrelevant results you must wade through to find references to the toxicity of certain elements to experience this for yourself.)

Respondents also indicate issues around not having a clearly defined model of innovation.  Asked to characterize their Innovation Champions program, 46% answered that there is no formal program in place.  This is further supported by the earlier Permanent Innovation Survey which identified that a mere 13% of respondents felt their organization understood the process of innovation very well.  The Permanent Innovation Survey went on to show that 63% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement “Innovation is an ad-hoc process in our company,” and only 22% of respondents felt that their company’s strategy and innovation process were tightly coupled.

These issues of concept generation and process definition are both areas that can be greatly assisted through appropriate technology.  So why then does Langdon conclude that software tools are of little importance?  The answer lies in the questions which were asked.  The InnovationLabs survey asked specifically about Idea repository, Project management, and Stage gate software tools.  While these tools serve a role in the productionaliztion of concepts, it is obvious that they have no value contribution to the heavy-lifting activity of concept generation.  This is where practitioners feel the pain.

If we boil down the results of the Innovation Champions and Networks Survey, it is clear that the issues which need to be addressed fall into three key areas.

• People: There is a need for true top management support of the enterprise innovation agenda, as well as to foster a culture of innovation that builds grassroots enthusiasm and momentum for the program.



• Process: Organizations need guidance on how to structure a reliable program for innovation that establishes innovation excellence as a value driving core competency.  This structured innovation process should also ensure that evaluation of alternative innovation outcomes is naturally metricized and aligned with corporate strategic goals.



• Communication: Innovation workers must have more effective means of concept identification and evaluation.  They must be able to tap into knowledge resources and leverage both internal information and lessons learned, and external information with equal facility.

The latter two points, process automation and information access, are key areas where software technologies have traditionally been able to provide substantial benefits.  One of the most immediate benefits realized through appropriate technology application is time savings.

So, we come full circle.  Yes, time to innovate is important.  The right software technology can help address this issue directly.

Innovation Bloggers Virtual Forum April 26, 2007

Jeff DeCagna of Principled Innovation is hosting an Innovation Bloggers Virtual Forum.  The event, to be held on April 26, promises to deliver some interesting and lively discussion.  There will be two sessions, of 90 minutes each, at 11:00 am and 2:00 pm EDT.  Each session will feature a blogger roundtable moderated by Jeff.

The discussion should cover a wide range of topics including the areas of creativity and innovation.  Given the field of bloggers who have already expressed interest, the event should draw from many different perspectives.  I am looking forward the event and hope to see sustainable high performance innovation practice addressed.  Jeff?

Patent Activity & Innovation

Some days you are slogging through something as exciting as watching paint dry, when something pops up to make you smile.  So it was for me today.  I had spent most of the day working on a number of patent applications in different phases of the process when I noticed an interesting post on what has become one of my favorite innovation blogs, Endless Innovation.

In “The Semiconductor Industry Patent Scorecard”, Dominic Basulto comments on some data from The Patent Board, reported in the Wall Street Journal.  Dominic concludes by questioning whether a company’s innovation record is a predictor of its financial performance.  This is a good question.  While the topic is too large to address in a simple blog post, I would like to offer a few relevant observations.

We must always bear in mind that there are many factors influencing a company’s financial performance.  Innovation is only one aspect of this complex equation.  Having said that, I contend, other factors being equal, a company with a strong and established innovation core competence will, over time, outperform the company reliant on accidental innovation.  The fact that so many companies fail to achieve a positive ROI on their R&D effort is largely due to the fact that most companies are still floundering in the muck of the accidental innovation quagmire.

But, what about patent activity?  Doesn’t that give us insight into who will be the shining star of the investment portfolio?  Well, yes it can; but you must understand how to read the tea leaves.  For example, in the data graphs shown in the Wall Street Journal, one can readily see that the innovation cycle time values for both profiled companies have been getting worse over the past four years.  Is this a clue as to why they are not the financial performance leaders?

Patents, as indicators of innovation, are useful.  Within any given industry, there is a certain proclivity toward patent activity.  This means that while the ratio of R&D investment to patent activity will vary from industry to industry, within a given industry it is possible to make a comparison.  But, what do you compare?  The answer to this question is not for the squeamish. 

Let’s begin with the basics.  Patent activity, measured in terms of applications and grants, is an indicator of the innovation efficiency of an organization.  To understand that, you must consider the ratio of R&D spend to intellectual property generated.  If you don’t know the R&D spend figures, you can get a rough, but useful, measure by using top line revenue.  The simple idea here is that it is much more significant when a $100 million company has 20 filings that it is when a $10 billion company has this same IP output.  Interesting?  Yes, but there is more to think about.

Where are the companies putting their resources?  To gain insights into this, you will need to consider the IPC classes of patent filings to get a rough idea of the technology area in which a company is investing.  Are they investing in exciting markets, or are they investing in tired markets?  You can peel the onion back even further.  By looking at the details of the technologies being developed, you can understand if, within their chosen markets, they are developing technologies on the rising slope of the technology S-curve as opposed to ones that are near the end of their life cycle.

While this is somewhat simplified and I have covered only a few of the basics, I hope this provides some useful insights.  Patent records are very interesting sources of information.  If you have access to the right tools, they can provide valuable insights into a company.  What is more interesting is that they are also tremendous sources of insights for innovation practitioners.  But that is a topic for another post.

TRIZCON2007

The Altshuller Institute for TRIZ Studies is holding its ninth annual international conference, TRIZCON2007, at the Louisville Marriott Downtown in Louisville, Kentucky.  The event, to be held April 23th through 25th, is the premier TRIZ event of the year in the U.S.

I will be presenting at TRIZCON2007 and will post interesting news from the event.  The abstract of my session follows:

Title:  FUNCTION MODELING FOR THE REST OF US

Abstract:
To quickly move from problem to inventive solution, a clear understanding of the problem at hand is necessary.  The process of identifying the right problem statement is embedded at the core of both TRIZ and ARIZ.  Among the many tools available to TRIZ practitioners, function modeling is extremely helpful to achieve a deeper understanding of the system being examined and arrive at a clear definition of the problem.  Unfortunately, function modeling can be very difficult for the novice practitioner--thinking functionally is unfamiliar.

Recent advances in computational linguistics now make it possible for the TRIZ novice to approach the practice of function modeling with confidence.  By tapping into a broad “informational fund”, practitioners can leverage knowledge beyond their own personal experience and gain insights into the mereological and functional relationships required to accurately abstract their system for function modeling.  Expert TRIZ practitioners can also benefit by having a virtual subject matter expert supplement their creative insights.

In this session, the benefits to TRIZ practice through the application of advanced computational linguistics to function modeling are explored.

Leggett & Platt Announce Innovation Initiative

Last Thursday, I wrote about the need to increase the scope of our innovative vision in “Thinking About The Box”.  Now, Leggett & Platt, a fortune 500 diversified manufacturer, has announced a new major initiative around innovation.

In their press release, Leggett & Platt discuss the initiative as creating an environment to both develop their internal innovation capabilities and tap into the world of open innovation.  They state that they expect 70% of their innovation to happen internally, and they plan on leveraging broad and deep resources from inside and outside to fuel the initiative.

This is exactly the type of initiative that can redefine the box for companies wishing to take control of their innovation process.

Is Anybody Listening?

On a recent stay at the ANA Hotel in Tokyo, I was fascinated by this rather odd looking statue of a dog in the lobby.  When I asked about it, the desk clerk said, “His name is Loy; he is the mascot of the hotel.”

“But, why are his ears so long?” I asked.

“That is so he can better hear the voice of the customer,” came the reply.

The idea of hearing the voice of the customer is nothing new.  Practitioners of QFD (quality function deployment) will point to VOC (voice of the customer) as a pivotal part of the methodology.  Yet, Jeffrey Phillips notes his surprise to hear the word empathy used at a recent innovation forum.  Why was this surprising to Jeffrey?

Perhaps some insight is given by Daniel Scocco’s comments in “Know-how and Know-why”.  Here, Daniel observes that the pace of change drives mangers to focus on the details of implementation and to forget why they are pursuing the change.  Sadly, I suspect the real issue is a little deeper than that.

There is a fundamental difference between hearing and listening.  Most of us hear quite well; fewer among us are good listeners.  While many organizations invest vast quantities of time and money itemizing the CTQs (critical to quality factors) as they follow their methodology, in all too many cases, these same organizations fail to ask simple questions that would help them conceive and develop better products.

Why did the customer ask for this?
What is the customer really after?
What is job this product really performs for the customer?
How does this tie back to the fundamental value proposition of the product?
How does this align with the company objectives?

These are just a few of the questions that often don’t get asked.  These are also critical questions, the answers to which must be understood if companies are to make sound judgments about product initiatives.  Like Loy, companies must do a better job of listening to their clients.  Make sure your innovation best practices reinforce this discipline.