Innovating To Win

Closing The Innovation Perception Gap

“The innovations perception gap” in Endless Innovation cites a report indicating a difference in the level of satisfaction with innovation within companies as reported by executives, mid-level managers, and professional employees (75%, 70%, and 60% respectively).  Douglas Klein, president of Sirota Survey Intelligence, suggests that this may be a cause for concern, especially when one considers that the professional employees are the ones “most responsible for the development of new ideas that lead to practical product and service innovations.”  Yet, there are two observations that must be made here.

First, while the professional employees are directly responsible for the generation of new ideas and the development of the products and services that those ideas enable, corporate executives bear fully responsibility for the innovation agenda of the company, its implementation, and the results of the selected innovation programs.  In a public company, the executives carry the burden of shareholder accountability for their delivery on the innovation agenda by virtue of their fiducial obligation to the shareholders.  This is why it is imperative for senior management to determine the metrics of alignment that will be used to steer innovation initiatives in directions consistent with corporate objectives.

This brings me to the second observation.  These metrics of alignment are often neither articulated clearly by management nor used effectively by professional employees.  It is critical to a sustainable innovation program that this issue is addressed.

Senior management must accept that innovation is not something that can be neatly isolated and delegated to others.  The success metrics of the organization must be encapsulated as criteria of evaluation.  These criteria must then be communicated so that innovation workers throughout the organization are empowered to make good decisions that map to the company’s goals.  Professional employees must adopt proper repeatable innovation practices that include the evaluation of possible paths for their alignment with the company goals.

Incorporation of the corporate alignment metrics in the front-end of the innovation disciplines will enhance the likelihood that selected concepts will lead to successful product and service innovations.  The need to improve the conversion rate of ideas to successful innovations is at the crux of the innovation challenge facing most organizations.  Concordance between executive management and professional employees through clearly communicated metrics of alignment is necessary to establish a successful repeatable innovation practice.  A shared vision of the innovation objectives will help to close the perception gap.

For Successful Innovation, Don’t Embrace Failure

“Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.” – Thomas A. Edison

To read much of what is written about innovation lately, you might wonder why people try to innovate.  It seems that many pundits advise embracing failure.  This is fundamentally wrong thinking.

I am not suggesting that those who test the boundaries of possibility through innovation will not meet with occasional failure.  However, understanding that the road to realizing an innovative vision is not smooth does not equate to accepting failure.  Quite the contrary, we must eschew failure if we are to maintain the momentum toward success.  If you don’t believe, you can not succeed.  We need only look to great innovators of the past to see that this is so.

An often cited claim is that Thomas Edison failed over three thousand times in his endeavor to develop the electric light bulb.  In reality, this claim is a distortion of the facts.  As late as 1878, Edison avoided working on electric lighting because “so many others are working in that field.”  It was only after seeing an arc light system in the fall of 1878 that he decided to enter the fray (a decision that caused much grief later as his 1880 patent was invalidated a short 3 years later in 1883).

Edison began testing the working properties of different materials.  His experiments were driven by his idea that, unlike the common approach of using thick conductive bars, the use of very thin resistive filaments would produce the desired result with complimentary practical benefits as well.  Were these experiments failed attempts to innovate?  Obviously, the answer is no.  Each test was a small step on a purposeful path of successful innovation.  Edison is credited with saying, “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”  These are not the words of one who embraces failure.

Edison, like many successful innovators, was highly disciplined in his approach to invention, as well as his attitude about his work.  He developed his own system of innovation best practices, and ran his labs according to those disciplines.  Organizations that wish to become innovation leaders would do well to learn from his example.  These organizations should adopt a structured approach to their innovation practice and while they must accept that failure may occur, they must not embrace failure.  Rather, they must embrace the challenge of success.

Innovation is about finding new and better solutions to problems.  The successful innovator is one that seeks to find a solution when others would throw in the towel.  This is harder to do than one might think.  Slow progress, setbacks, and naysayers may test the innovator’s resolve.  Conventional wisdom says that one must learn to fail fast.  This is true.  But, it is even more important to learn to distinguish between failure and opportunity.