Innovating To Win

Ask For Forgiveness, Not Permission

One day, I was talking with the manager of our customer support group about what changes in the product would make his life easier.  He began explaining how if he had a better diagnostic utility, it would be easier to identify the common configuration errors that occur in the field.  His idea was we could provide the utility, ask the customer to run the utility, look at the output of the utility, and then advise the customer on how to correct the problem.

Something didn’t feel right about this.  I asked if the steps to correct the issues were well understood and deterministic.  The reply was “Yes.”  So, then I asked, “Gee, Andrew, if the solutions are known in advance, wouldn’t it be better if the utility not only identified the diagnostic data, but also could fix the problem immediately?”  Andrew’s reply came swiftly.  “Yes, that would be great.  I didn’t think I could ask for that.”

How many great initiatives never get the chance to get started because the need is not given a voice?  This feeling that there are unspoken limits to what can be considered is something I have heard in many environments.  I don’t know of a single manager who would feel good that employees felt they needed permission to pursue ways of creating value for the customer and hence the company.  Yet, the fact is these feelings exist and are more common than we might imagine.

The topic is one that has been touched upon by others.  Drew Boyd advises innovation practitioners to “stop evangelizing and start doing.”  While the Front End of Innovation blog suggests that innovators “just keep at it.”

Both comments are well founded.  Innovation practitioners must stop worrying about the repercussions of innovation, and get on with the business of creating value.  If they are focused on innovation that is aligned with the corporate objectives, they will be able to find high level champions to take up the standard and support their efforts.

Managers, however, must also take note.  Note all workers are driven by the same level of entrepreneurial spirit.  Some will take the initiative and act.  Others will wait for permission.  So, it is up to you to grant permission proactively.  Communicate the rules of engagement and the corporate objectives in a way that empowers your innovation workers.  When you make it clear that they have permission to be bold (or better yet that they will be rewarded for demonstrating constructive initiative) you will be surprised at the value-creating forces you unleash.

Innovation & Risk – What Do Your Votes Say?

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, “Which statement about innovation and risk do you most agree with?”

Okay, some of us have a sense of humor.  However what is far more interesting than the number of us who feel getting out of bed is dicey proposition, it the fact that no one selected the response “Innovation is risky business.”

With all the statements one hears and sees in print proclaiming that innovation means accepting higher risk and inevitable failure, we see that in our small community that sentiment is not strongly represented.  In fact, the prevailing opinion is that innovation is necessary to avoid risk.

The split between the statements “Failure to innovate brings risk” and “Sustainable innovation practices reduce risk” was close enough to call it even.  But each of these statements speaks to the risk reduction that comes with innovation.

Of course we all feel the tremendous pressures that companies are under from various global, economic, and legislative trends than add complexity to an ever changing competitive landscape.  C-execs understand that their companies, their strategies, and their products need to change with the market.  This change means innovation, because if you don’t take the innovation high ground in your market, someone else will and gain an advantage in the process.

Sustainable innovation practices only help to improve the risk mitigation of innovation.  By optimizing the efficiency of innovation workers, sustainable innovation practices help lead organization to find the best strategies, execute to the strategies more effectively, and build value by being able to do these things reliably and repeatedly.

Now, we do have to recognize that the respondents to this casual survey are a self-selected group.  We are all very interested in innovation, and most of us are experienced innovation practitioners.  However, that makes these results even more telling.  We have been testing in the battle to innovate.  We have had our share of failures.  Yet, we have seen the positive impact that innovation has, and this is why we feel collectively that innovation is the cure for today’s biggest business risks.

Innovation Poll #1 Closed, Innovation Poll # 2 Open

The Innovation and Risk survey is over.  Thanks to all who voted.

A new poll is active now.  This time, we are looking at innovation challenges.  Which aspect of innovation presents the greatest challenge to you or your organization?

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Innovation Lessons From Italian Furniture Design

I stumbled upon an interesting article courtesy of the developerlife blog.  The article, “Radical Design, Radical Results”, is found on the Harvard Business School Working Knowledge site and presents some fascinating insights from HBS visiting scholar Roberto Verganti.

Verganti was involved in a study of 100 Italian furniture design firms to try and gain some understanding of how companies manage design innovation.  The study was done by classifying 2000 objects along a number of dimensions such as shape, color, surface and material.  The study also distinguished between innovators (companies that have been nominated or awarded the Compasso d’Oro prize) and imitators (everyone else).

Here are a few points of interest raised in the article.

Verganti is quoted as saying, “It’s hard to understand what people want.”  Certainly, listening to customers is a skill to which many companies don’t devote enough attention.  They are content with collecting raw data and simply scratching their heads when the data doesn’t immediately provide a clear message.  However, this doesn’t mean that customers are not trying to communicate their desires; it only means that they don’t know to articulate their needs and wants in the language designers and engineers are receptive to hearing.

A couple years ago, I saw a fabulous presentation given at The Front End of Innovation conference in Boston by Johnson Controls.  Johnson Controls had conducted research that told them that the property of craftsmanship was something that consumers valued when they evaluated an automotive purchase. Unfortunately, the notion of craftsmanship was not well defined and customers didn’t directly explain what this meant.  Johnson Controls could have ignored the input, or they could have just made up their own definition of craftsmanship.  But they chose to do something really great.  They conducted research to identify specific properties that people use to discern automotive craftsmanship.  This list of visual, aural, tactile, and olfactory cues then was used to develop a system of scoring the property of craftsmanship of a specific item or assembly.  It was a truly inspirational example of digging into customer feedback to better interpret what we are being told.

It is also a good example of why people who fall on the old adage of “the market (or customer) doesn’t know what it wants” have it wrong.  The truth is we often just don’t know how to listen to what the market is telling us.

Another interesting observation in the article is the contrast in behavior of innovators and imitators.  The study found that innovators tend to have less variety in the product lines than imitators.  While the researchers found this result surprising, I don’t.  When you consider the goals of design innovation—unique brand identify, market place differentiation – and the need to recoup the investment in innovations, very wide diversity in the product line doesn’t really map that well to these goals.

Whether you consider you products or services to be design intensive or not, the lessons from the article are valuable.

Looking Ahead – What About Electric Cars?

The news about Sony’s victory in the high definition DVD war, got me thinking about another battleground: petro-fuel versus electric cars.  It seems to me that petro-fuel distribution companies are missing a huge opportunity.

Consider the needs of electric cars.  The need to be able to be efficiently charged.  I’m not talking about the efficient transfer of energy to the vehicle’s battery.  Yes, that is important.  But, even more important is the need for ownership to be easy.  If you are driving across country in your electric car, you want the comfort of knowing that you won’t find yourself in the unhappy situation of needing a charge but being get it.

Last October, we noted the story of an entrepreneur that was raising capital to take on this challenge and build a network of refueling stations for electric cars.  But, wait!  Who has a network of fuel distribution centers conveniently located for motorists?  What if these companies were to retrofit their distribution outlets to handle delivery of services to electric vehicles?

It seems that petro-fuel distribution companies are in the catbirds seat to act on this opportunity.  The question is will they do anything about.  So far, the evidence would suggest that they are going to protect their turf.  However, this would be a big mistake.  It ignores one of the fundamental principles of innovation practice: “figure out how to obsolete your own product before someone else does.”  Of course, the petro-fuel distributors don’t even have to obsolete there product; they can truly have their cake and eat it to.

Perhaps, they are just waiting for the electric car technology to mature a bit more before they jump in.  What do you think?

Learning From The Past – Sony & Blu-ray

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- George Santayana (1863 - 1952)

Well, it’s official.  The Wall Street Journal reports that Toshiba has thrown in the towel in the HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray battle.  This is a huge win for Sony as it will now have unchallenged control of the high-definition DVD market.  For Toshiba, it is a stinging defeat.

Going into this battle, Sony had some advantages to draw upon.  Their position in the entertainment media world gave them important leverage.  But their past history – the lessons of a similar war which they lost – also provided them with unique perspective that could only help as they mapped out their strategy.

In the 1980s, Sony was pushing hard to win with the Betamax VCR format.  Even though it was arguably better technology, Sony was unable to beat out the VHS format.

The lesson here is clear.  The painful lessons of losing a battle are often of great value when the next battle ground is defined.  Value your lessons learned and disseminate the lessons throughout your organization.

Results Justify Innovation

“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” – Steve Jobs

Innovation, everyone wants it, and no one wants it.  This is the paradox that sometimes haunts those who are in the trenches trying to build innovation programs in their organizations.  In their blogs, Jeffrey Phillips and Jeff De Canga posit on this topic considering why innovation needs to be justified.

Of course, the answer to question is very simple.  Most companies have had a very bad history with efforts to innovate.  The frustration that comes from the accidental innovation trap led one person to opine that he could do better going to Las Vegas with his R&D budget.  The bottom line is that the only justification an innovation program needs is results.

Of course, many innovation professionals are chary of suggesting that they can guarantee results.  But this is exactly what an executive wants to hear.

This is why sustainable innovation practice is so very important as the foundation of any innovation program.  Will innovation best practices guarantee success for every project?  No.  Let’s face it.  Sometimes we may reach beyond the limits of possibility; perhaps the science to implement an idea doesn’t exist yet. 

What sustainable innovation practice does ensure is that if a project objective is attainable, you will get to the optimal outcome efficiently.  Innovation best practices also ensure that if a project objective is not achievable, you will be able to fail fast and move on to the next project.  More importantly, applying the principles of sustainable innovation will make your organization better at selecting projects that are attainable and well aligned with your business objectives.

Companies that build sustainable innovation programs don’t have any problems justifying innovation.  They achieve the success which is the most compelling justification.  Are you building your innovation program on a foundation of repeatable success?

Innovation and Risk Poll Closing Soon

Our informal poll on innovation and risk closes this Friday.  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 next Monday.

Training For The Innovation Ultra-marathon

In “Forget about an idea marathon,” Katie Konrath uses the metaphor of racing and marathons to discuss how to work on creating a lot of ideas when the need arises.  The analogy is interesting because in business, the race never ends.  As soon as we deliver a product to the market place, we begin asking what’s next.  Where will the competition come from?  How will we improve our position?  We are in the ultimate ultra-marathon—one does not end.

This is why the issue of sustainable innovation practice is so important.  It is not enough to be innovative once.  We must constantly innovate, and re-innovate.  To stop innovation, is to stagnate.  In business, stagnation is a sure path to failure.

Looking to the world of ultra-marathon running, we can learn a lesson about innovation practice.

In 1983, a potato farmer entered the Westfield Sydney to Melbourne Ultra Marathon.  Cliff Young was not so young at the age of 61.  He had also never run a marathon before.  When he showed up to run the race in overalls and gumboots, many people thought he was laughable.  Running the race, Cliff’s shuffling gait was outpaced by the younger and more fleet of foot runners.  But when the other runners quit for the night, Cliff kept running, and running, and running.  After four days of running non-stop, Cliff crossed the finish line first and set a new record for the course beating the previous record by nine hours.

Afterwards, Cliff explained to the press that whenever a storm was approaching he would have to round up all the sheep on his 2000 acre farm buy running around after them.  So during the race he just imagined that he was rounding up sheep trying to keep ahead of a coming storm.  Today, the Young-shuffle is used by many ultra-marathoners.

The lesson for innovation practitioners is integrate innovation practice into what you do everyday.  This continuous reinforcement of innovation best practice will ensure that you are fit and ready to win the innovation ultra-marathon.

Seeing Beyond Our Fences

Over on Endless Innovation, “Importing and Exporting Idea from Different Marketplaces” touches on a very key issue facing many organizations.  The mental inertia that comes from being too close to one’s own product can stifle innovative thinking.  Richard D’Aveni of Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business explains the value of bringing cross industry insights into the organization. 

Dominic Basulto concludes, “Simply put, managers within any industry become so focused on their immediate competition that they are often unable to see the relationships between other industries and "connect the dots." That's why companies hire strategy consulting groups -- not so much for their raw intellectual talent in analyzing strategic issues, but for their ability to leverage best practices across a wide array of industries and sectors.”

However, it is important to remember that the inability to connect the dots is generally not because the in-house strategist lacks the ability to do so.  Rather, it is difficult for in-house innovation workers because they lack the visibility to the dots.  The nature of their work has resulted in a fence of information that blocks their view to the world outside their domain of immediate practice.  The result is that critical dots that may provide high value connection points are obscured or only seen out of context.

Innovation workers should be equipped with the ability to see over the information fence to the great expanse of global experience where many high-value dots reside.  Thus equipped, the in-house innovation worker is able to perform at a much higher level than the outside consultant because they have a far deeper understanding of the significance of the connections that are identified.  This means that they can select connections more accurately, and more importantly they can see connections that consultants would miss.

To achieve this result, innovation workers need access to global information sources.  But their information access needs are very specific.  They don’t merely need access.  They need highly efficient navigation through the vast sea of information to help them rapidly identify the actionable concepts that are important.  They need design intent based concept navigation.

Equip the innovation worker with actionable knowledge and watch what happens.  How have you been able to break free of your own information fences?