“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.
Comments