Innovating To Win

Clarifying a Question on Fostering Innovation Culture

Recently, CIO.com ran an article I wrote under the title “Fostering Innovation Culture in an Unpredictable Economy.”  Peter-Anthony Glick posted some nice commentary on the piece.  In his post, Peter-Anthony questioned the use of the phrase “Unpredictable Economy,” asserting that no economy is predictable.  On the chance that other may have been confused by this, I’d just like to clarify the intent of the title.

We are currently in a particular volatile economic climate.  This volatility is what I was characterizing as unpredictability.  Why is this notion important?  It is important because many companies will make a critical error in the near future.  As the economic uncertainty continues, these companies will react by slashing budgets as a way to protect against the possibility of the losses that come with missed revenue attainment.  While this is not in and of itself a mistake, what is a mistake is to decimate the investment in product innovation in a down market.

Difficult markets create opportunities for the companies that are ready and willing to invest in taking advantage of the opportunity.  For many companies, this means moving forward with innovation agendas and building a sustainable innovation culture.  I hope that help eliminate any confusion about my choice of words.

Is Innovation Getting Harder?

Does it seem at times that finding novel solutions to design challenges is getting more difficult for your organization?  Well, maybe that’s because it is.

It’s not so much that the basic process of innovation has become more difficult, nor is it the case that today’s design challenges are inherently more difficult that those that great innovators of the past tackled.  It is simply the case that many of our system have evolved away from the traits that are supportive of innovation.

How so you ask?  There are a number of ways in which this phenomenon can be observed.  Here, let’s consider one counter-innovative trend: technical specialization.

Technical specialization is supposed to make engineers, scientists, and technical designers better at what they do by ensuring they have an appropriately deep understand of their areas of expertise.  That makes perfect sense, and if you approach a modern engineer and ask them a question about their craft you will be instantly impressed at the deeply considered answer they are able to provide.

However, this deep and narrow focus on a tightly defined area of expertise which is the strength of modern engineers is also their Achilles’ heel when it comes to innovation.  The most inventive solutions to innovation problems are often found in the application of knowledge from outside the immediate domain of the problem.  But, if the innovation worker sees the world through such a narrowly focused lens, the ability of the worker to correctly identify the optimal solution is greatly impeded.  In effect, our focus on specialization has placed blinders on our innovation workforce.

So, what then is a company to do if they wish to have their innovation workers excel when faced with the need to find new, breakthrough concepts?  The answer is simple.  Arm them with tools they need to complement their expertise with cross domain knowledge.  However, finding the right way to do this is not so easy.

An engineer in one field may not be familiar with the jargon of another discipline.  The innovation worker may not think to ask if there is a solution in area with which they are unfamiliar or unaware.

This is why contextual design-intent based knowledge tools are import for today’s design organization.  These tools provide cross domain concept retrieve in the specific context of the knowledge workers need.  When knowledge workers are able to see the full universe of available solution paths, they are able to achieve their innovation potential.  Leading high-performance innovation organizations deploy such technologies as part of their sustainable innovation strategies.

Innovation Challenges Poll Closing Soon

Our informal poll on innovation challenges 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.

Innovation And The Light Bulb

Lots of folks complain that the light bulb is a tired and hackneyed symbol for innovation.  So, I found it somewhat amusing to see the lowly light bulb making a bit of innovation news.  Over on BizTechTalk, “How Many People Does It Take to Make a New Light Bulb?” points out one man’s efforts to find eco-friendly lighting solutions.

If you have seen BizTechTalk before, check it out.  I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Dan Keldsen.  He is a sharp fellow, and he posts some nice interview podcasts on his blog.

So, you are undoubtedly asking yourself what I found amusing about the eco-friendly light bulb.  Well, the story reminded me of a TRIZ joke.

Question: How many TRIZ Masters does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: None. The Ideal Final Result is that the light bulb changes itself.

Time To Rethink The Bayh-Dole Act

Today, Bill Gates is scheduled to testify before the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology on the future of innovation and U.S. competitiveness.  At a hearing commemorating the committee’s 50th anniversary, Gates will focus on key issues around the future of U.S. competitiveness: including education and work-force development, the need for immigration reform to allow highly skilled workers to remain in the U.S, and the need to continue to invest in basic research.

“I know we all want the United States to continue to be the world’s center for innovation. But our position as the global leader in innovation is at risk,” Gates said. “If this nation is to continue to be the global center of innovation, Congress, the current administration and the next president must act decisively.”

Well, here’s a thought.  How about we amend the Bayh-Dole Act?

For those who are not familiar with the Bayh-Dole Act, it is a very significant piece of U.S. intellectual property legislation that was enacted in 1980.  Perhaps the most significant aspect of the legislation was the change in the assumption of ownership of the intellectual property created by government funded research.  Prior to Bayh-Dole, the resulting IP from government funded research was the property of the taxpayers—the people who actual paid for the research.

It was argued at the time, that the ownership of IP by the taxpayers did not benefit society because universities had no incentive to move the IP into the commercial arena.   By creating a monetization opportunity for the research institutions, the taxpayers would benefit because the inventions would more rapidly make their way to useful products, and innovation would be further spurred by the institutions seeking enhanced IP driven revenue. 

In practice, Bayh-Dole has been mostly a benefit to the business community.  Not that this is a bad thing, but it was certainly not the stated intent of the bill.

It seems that a modified Bayh-Dole could continue to serve the original intent, and at the same time help ensure that the benefits of publicly funded research inure more directly to the taxpayers.  Rather than transfer ownership of the IP wholly to the research institution, the ownership should be held by taxpayers under a profit sharing program that cuts research institutions and inventor in on a piece of the monetization action.

An Office of Innovation Development should be formed that is responsible for working with institutions to actively promote such IP.  The portion of the proceeds from IP development that inure to the taxpayers should then be put in a specific innovation development fund that is earmarked to fund science & technology education, basic research, and innovation skills development.

I am usually the last person to argue for governmental expansion, but privatization of such valuable publicly held assets was a very raw deal for taxpayers.  We are at a pivotal moment in history relative to world economic development.  The resources generated from these intellectual property assets could be channeled to great public benefit.  This would be a real benefit to the U.S. and a significant benefit to the global community as well.

Using Innovation Methodology For Merger & Acquisition Planning

I had the opportunity to review a paper written by a colleague, Jim Belfiore, that will be presented at TRIZCON2008.  I won’t steal Jim’s thunder here, but if you are planning on going to TRIZCON, I highly recommend the session that Jim will be presenting.

Jim is taking on a topic not usual seen at this event—using TRIZ principles to guide business strategy.  The paper presents an approach to looking at how technologies evolve to target M&A opportunity spaces.  Predictive analysis of the opportunities yields a targeted IP analysis plan to uncover interesting investment opportunities.

Sound interesting?  I found the paper a novel treatment of  the subject and a clever application of TRIZ thinking.  Knowing Jim as I do, I think this is a presentation not to be missed.  I wish I could be there.

Is Too Much Creativity Killing Innovation?

Okay, how’s this for stirring the pot?  Have you noticed how many articles about innovation are focused on being more creative?  Some folks suggest taking long walks.  Some advise that team building games are just the thing.  While others write about how there is no such thing as a bad idea.  Is all of this focus on creativity a good thing?

We don’t seem to be able to break free of the mythology of innovation.  Our passionate affair with the mystery of inspiration and how it fuels the creative process is deeply fixed in our universal ethos.  Yet, history teaches us that this myth of the big, creative idea is just that—a myth.

That is not to say that creativity is not an important element of the innovation process, but that the role of creativity is often misunderstood and over stated.  The vast majority of innovation is not driven by pure creation; it is driven by synthesis, a particular form of creation that builds on the existing to make something which is new.

But, even if this is so, does that make the focus on creativity a bad thing?  Isn’t it still helpful to develop the skills to envision new solutions?  Maybe yes; maybe no.

Organizations have a limited set of resources to apply to any issue.  Innovation is no different in this regard.  The company that wants to pursue innovation as something more than a buzz word has a limited amount of attention, resource, and time that can be allocated to the effort to instill a sustainable innovation framework.  It is also the case that the degree to which the organization sees that early efforts at developing innovation competence are deemed successful will greatly influence the company’s commitment to continuing to move down the path from accidental innovation to high performance innovation.

Few of the companies I talk to feel that coming up with great ideas is their biggest innovation challenge.  Rather, they feel the key issues are instilling a sustainable innovation culture, developing the innovation skills and best practices to ensure reliability in the innovation to product development process, and feeling confident that their processes will achieve the optimal realization of their ideas as delivered products.  If this is the case, then it is reasonable to question whether the incremental value of a tactical creativity exercise will deliver the value the company is seeking.

There is a statement which has been attributed to a variety of great thinkers including Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein and Benjamin Franklin.  I don’t know who actually said it, but it is worth repeating in this context.  “Vision without execution is hallucination.”

In this scenario, it may be argued that creativity is the enemy of innovation because it creates a diversion that distracts attention from the things that the enterprise considers most important.  If the enterprise focuses its investment on creativity development but doesn’t have the rest of its innovation ecosystem in good order, it will yield little reward for the effort.  On the other hand, if the enterprise has a health engine for innovation fueled by a strong innovation culture and innovation best practices, it will succeed with the ideas it has already.

What do you think?

Tear Down The Bastions Of Mediocrity

Seth Godin reminds us today about the ubiquitous defenders of mediocrity.  You know the ones.  Once a great initiative is identified, these antagonists squirm out dark corners to erect barriers to progress. 

We all know them.  Motivated by their own agendas to protect their interests, they agitate to find reasons to maintain the status quo rather than consider the benefit of inspired change that will create new value.  Perhaps, one is a product manager who feels threatened by the new direction.  Another might be an engineer who takes umbrage at the suggestion that there might be a better way than what has been the practice of the past.  The variations on the theme are endless, and so it is that often innovation is crushed by the forces of mediocrity.

You don’t have to accept this sad situation; you mustn’t accept it.  Innovation practitioners must stand strong against the seemly overwhelming challenge of those who would stop progress.  It is not always easy, but the result of ruthlessly pursuing the right vision is a reward that makes the effort worth while.

Some tips to help overcome these obstacles include:

Understand who the opposition is – Don’t take it personally, these people are not erecting barriers because of you; they are reacting to the threat of change.  Identify the naysayers and feel their pain.  If you can see the world through the same lens that they do, you will understand how to disarm their arguments.

Challenge your opponents in the free market of ideas – While the ranks of the defenders of mediocrity may be very deep, there are plenty of people who will be receptive to the value proposition you are bringing.  Find the channels to reach these possible allies and endorsers; get your message out there and proactively diffuse the assaults that you know will come.

Find champions to join you in the fight – As you find high level endorsers for your initiative, don’t be shy about enlisting their active support in the battle.  Build a force for change, and create visible momentum around the innovation agenda.

The path to success in every organization is unique.  As innovation practitioners, we need to understand the nature of this path and stick to it.  While it can be struggle, success will come to those who tenaciously drive forward on that path with a message of strong value creation.

Would You Kiss This Pig?

Is technology and innovation overrated?  This is the question raised on the Interactive Marketing Blog.  There the argument is made that innovation is a red herring that doesn’t necessarily deliver the desired impact to the company seeking to build value.

Of course, it depends on how you define innovation.  If you define it as simply new stuff, then the point has some merit.  But, most of the companies and innovation practitioners I talk to don't view this as a meaningful definition.

The prevailing definition is that innovation is a something new that creates value.  The extra phrase, "that creates value", is the crux of the matter.

If you have a poor value proposition, marketing isn't going get you very far.  Sure, once in a while a company gets away with slapping a little lipstick on the pig, but by and large, customers are savvier than that.

This is where innovation carries the day.  Innovation creates the compelling value proposition needed for success.  Good marketing then find the effect way to communicate the value proposition.

Sound Guidance From Four Top Practitioners

It is always interesting to hear the insights of leading innovation practitioners.  The article, “Instituting Innovation: Tell-all advice from 4 leading practitioners”, posted on Core77 doesn’t disappoint in this regard.  Here Arkadi Kuhlmann, CEO of ING Direct Bank; Ken Koziol, Corporate Senior Vice President for the Restaurant Solutions Group at McDonalds Corporation; Matt Mayfield, Senior Director for Mobile Devices of Motorola; and David Lawrence, Senior Manager of the Bicycle Product Development and Marketing division of Shimano, contribute their thoughts on how to build an innovation program.

In each case, an approach to innovation has been taken that is aligned with the general character of the company.  Factors such as culture, innovation readiness, and industry rate of change influenced the decisions of which direction to take.  And while the four companies demonstrate examples of the incubator, diffused participation, and tactical project driven approaches, there are common threads that run though all of the examples.

There is recognition that innovation is a process, not an event.  In this process, there are many different actors which contribute different skill sets along the way.  When building your innovation process, it is important to think about the different stages of innovation as a product moves through early stage ideation, conceptual materialization, validation and delivery, and the various skills that you need to have represented in the innovation team to be successful.

All four of the practitioners agree that innovation needs to speak to the customer to deliver value and hence success.  Listening to your clients and understanding what they are trying to tell you are critical elements in any successful innovation practice.  Oddly, the author of the article, Brianna Sylver, distinguishes this from seeking innovation through technology advances.  However, the two approaches need not be at odds, they can be very synergistic.  High value technology innovation is always driven by a need.  Understanding the repeating patterns of technology innovation can be of tremendous value in finding the market winning approach to answering a customer need.

Once an interesting concept is identified, working with the organizations culture is key to achieving productive support.  Contrary to the just do it approach which is often advocated, these executives advise to not emulate Sisyphus with futile efforts working against the corporate terrain.  Instead, learn how the change mechanisms in your organization are structured and which methods will engender the best response.

The topic of measuring innovation success is also discussed.  However, proceed with caution when considering the comments here.  The discourse highlights an example from Shimano of a new coasting bike that has not met financial expectation.  This is used to bolster the argument that short term profit should not be the only metric of success.  In general, this is a valid point.  Success metrics should be well balanced and capture the whole view of the innovation program goals.  However, we should fall into the trap of trying to redefine success in order to salvage a poor result.  In is import to be coldly objective in evaluating outcomes.  The criteria of success should be defined from the start, and in so doing we should heed Clayton Christiansen’s advice to be patient on revenue, but impatient on profit.

Related to defining good success metrics is the notion that your innovation program should always be aligned with the company’s business objectives.  It should go without saying, yet this is where many organizations go astray.  As they strive to think out of the box, they begin to think themselves out of business.  Koziol says it very well, “You need to always be in sync with the company’s strategic vision.  You just can’t afford to be off strategy.”

All in all, this is some great advice from four practitioners who are accountable for innovation in their companies.  While each has created a program to fit their environment, there are common lessons for us all.  As you think about these lessons may mean to your own innovation program, keep in mind that while each of these companies has elected to focus on one model of innovation, many companies achieve great success with hybrid models that blend the best aspects of all three of the approaches represented by this group.