Innovating To Win

Can Innovation Be Learned?

Reader Tim de Jardine raised the perennial question of “Can innovation be taught?”  It’s a question that comes up from time to time because of the persistent myth of the great thinker in the back room who is singularly gifted with the ability to create great ideas.  If one believes in this myth then one believes that people are either blessed with the ability to be innovative or they are not.  If you happen to be among the unfortunates that are not blessed with the gift then you can just forget about innovation because, as Andy Rooney once put it, “You can’t teach a fence post.”

However, the myth is just that – a myth.  I promised Tim that I would prepare a summary of the case for the innovation as a trainable skill.  So, here it is.

First, consider the following diagram.  It is a highly simplified model of the innovation thought process.  With out going into the relative merits and nuances of the Wallas versus Wertheimer thought models, this diagram draws upon the Wallas model in a way so as to facilitate a simple discussion.  It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words.  While I don’t know which thousand words are embodied in this diagram, there is a story being told here—a story of the birth of a big idea.

Innovation doesn’t happen in a vacuum.  It is a response to a stimulus.  The stimulus is represented here by the Problem.  Consciously or sub-consciously, the innovator performs an analysis of the problem state.  This analysis can be roughly associated with the preparation phase of the Wallas model.  Through this analysis, the innovator gains a more intimate understanding of the problem and the unique attributes of the problem (represented by the bolt and sun icons) that define the requirements of potential solutions.

There is a second aspect to the innovative process which is termed in the Wallas model as the incubation phase.  In the diagram, this is termed "association".  (I am not entirely happy with my word choice here, and the difficulty in identifying a word for this process is indicative of why the innovation myth is so persistent.  It is difficult for people to consider a concept for which there is not a name.)  This process of association is where the innovator draws upon knowledge to identify concepts that are applicable to the problem.  I have termed this association to stress the notion that the innovator is somehow filtering a potentially vast pool of knowledge and making the connections between the problem and its attributes to the specific conceptual knowledge that speaks to the attributes in a way that may contribute to a solution.

Eventually, when a critical mass of connections have been made the innovator is able to synthesize a new concept which is a potential innovative solution to the problem.  This act of synthesis is represented in the Wallas model as the illumination phase.  After the creation of the new solution concept, the innovator moves on with the arduous task of defining and refining a concrete expression of the innovation (corresponding to the final stage of the Wallas model, the verification and elaboration phase).

The purpose of breaking the process down in this way is to shed light on the notion that each of the component processes of innovation is something that any individual is able to perform.  The argument can be made that different people may have differing innate abilities in these areas.  It is reasonable to assume this is true, but the dominance of genetic influence over environmental expression is not clear. 

You may not have the highest level of natural talent for a discipline, but that does not mean that you can not attain some degree of mastery of the basic skill.  Though I will never play in Carnegie Hall, by dint of practice, I can play the piano beautifully.  There is even strong evidence that in the domain of cognitive function, some basic abilities can be developed over time as the brain retains the ability to regenerate and develop new connections well into old age.

The development of each of the component processes of innovative thinking can be enhanced through both training and technology.  There are many well understood and documented techniques for the problem analysis step.  These techniques are designed to help accelerate and clarify understanding of the problem state by identifying the unique problem attributes in a comprehensive and repeatable way.

Through the application of these techniques, innovation workers are able to focus their thinking more effectively by zeroing in on the right problem more quickly and having a much clearer concept of the metrics by which to evaluate potential solutions.  Technology can be applied to assist innovation practitioners in the application of specific methodologies to both shorten the path to mastery and ensure the accurate application of the method.

In the association process, there are many practical psychological methods to help facilitate making the connections which are the necessary precursor to the creative act of innovation.  The techniques have been successfully in wide use for many years.  Technology also can play a huge role in this area.  As the end result of problem analysis is a statement of design intent, technology can be used to surface concepts that map directly to the stated design intent—concepts which would otherwise be lost in the great sea of global knowledge.  By doing so, technology can place the innovation worker at the very apex of the confluence of information that leads to the state of illumination.

The same is true for the synthesis step.  Through the combination of method and technology, innovation workers can be led through the process of fitting the pieces together in a meaningful way and subsequently deriving a practical expression of the solution.

The proof points for this argument are easy to find and underscore the argument with a compelling body of evidence.

Jeffrey Phillips on Making Us More Innovative

Last week, I had a chat with Jeffrey while we were at the Front End of Innovation conference.  It was nice to finally meet Jeffery.  We have had many good exchanges via email and in the blogosphere.  The meeting also reminded me of the copy of Jeffrey’s recent book, “Make Us More Innovative”, sitting on my desk at home among a dozen other books on my reading list.  So this past weekend, I sat down and read Jeffrey’s book.

“Make Us More Innovative” is an accessible compendium of practical insights.  Drawing upon his years of experience in a variety of corporate and consulting positions, Jeffrey brings the basic themes of Innovate on Purpose to life as he provides advice on how to identify the key needs in an organization and fill the gaps to build a robust innovation environment.

The book begins by outlining twelve steps to building a corporate innovation program.  The subsequent chapters then unfold expanding on each of the steps in simple terms that make it easy to imagine the relevance to ones own situation.

All in all, “Make Us More Innovative” is a quick and easy read that helps organize many of the basic concepts one has to consider is tackling the problem of how to go about building a sustainable innovation practices.  I think one of Jeffery’s most important bits of advice is found in the chapter on Developing a culture of innovation.  Jeffrey writes, “Merely setting up an innovation team and establishing an innovation process is not enough.  If the management team does not fully support innovation initiatives through their communications, their priorities and their actions, no amount of cultural change will result in a successful innovation initiative.”

This is exactly the point my recent post, The Innovation Executive, and why executive leadership is the first of the Five Pillars of Sustainable Innovation Culture.

Innovation Idea Sources – What Do Your Votes Say?

The question asked in our most recent informal innovation poll was “What sources of innovation ideas do you find most valuable?”  What did you say about this?

Most of us recognize that ideas can come from many places. So, we see a fairly broad sampling of idea sources represented in the survey responses.  However, one source does stand out with almost half of respondents identifying trends from out side their industry as a high value idea source.

This result is a very good sign.  When we consider the source of solutions as related to level of inventiveness, the more inventive, high value solutions are found further from the local domain of expertise.  The most popular response represents the source that reaches farthest from local domain knowledge among the given options.

It is also fitting that this is the most popular response for this poll ending on what is, in the U.S., Memorial Day weekend.  Each year, we set aside one day to remember those brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice to make possible the freedom we enjoy.  It is also interesting to consider the amount of innovation that has come from the transference of military technology to civilian applications.

Today, we also open a new innovation poll.  Recently, I am seeing a growing trend around green innovation.  Green is becoming a front burner issue in many organizations.  So, this time we are exploring what green innovation drivers are you seeing.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

See You in Long Beach

If you are going to be in Long Beach, California on June 3, I hope you will stop by and say hello at PTCuser World Event 2008.  I will be giving a presentation there titled “Putting the Precise ‘P’ in PLM”.

As PLM/PDM systems are becoming strategic infrastructure for many companies, it is important for these organizations to understand the synergy between there PLM processes and innovation disciplines.  Most companies struggle with the challenge of commercializing innovation and homing in on ideas that will translate into successful, revenue-generating products.  Designers and engineers are constantly under pressure to deliver new products, only to experience technical and design problems mid-stream—problems that could easily have been avoided by leveraging the right technology and global expertise.

I will be describing how key manufacturers are generating and validating the right ideas before putting them into the product lifecycle management system by integrating certain elements of sustainable innovation practice into their processes.

The Innovation Executive

It was one of those days when the atmosphere is so heavy that you can see your words hanging in the warm summer air.  The CEO fidgeted as he pondered the question that had been tossed on the table so callously.  “What are you doing about innovation?” was the offensive query whose stench was burning in his nostrils.  Breaking the uncomfortable silence, he responded, “That’s why I have added Fred Lardbottom to my management team; he is our Innovation Czar.”  In that moment, all in attendance understood the emperor had no clothes.

Unfortunately, this scenario is not far from reality in many organizations.  While innovation is a top tier issue for many executives, it does not get the attention that its apparent importance might suggest.  Many CEOs, unsure as to how to get the innovation engine firing on all cylinders, defer to other and become detached from the initiative.  This is where they first go astray.  There is nothing wrong with delegating authority to drive innovation, but the CEO must not delegate responsibility.  The CEO must be in effect the Chief Innovation Officer. 

To be successful, the CEO must establish innovation as a fundamental part of the corporation’s culture.  This starts at the very top of the organization.  This is why Executive Leadership is the first of the Five Pillars of Sustainable Innovation Culture.

Leadership is not passive.  Innovation leadership is not achieved by simply saying a few words.  The CEO can not appear to be above it all.  It is the purpose of the Chief Executive to set the direction of the organization, define the parameters of success, and monitor execution.  In this role, the CEO must always balance short term and long term objectives.  With this in mind the CEO must consider how innovation is to impact the business along the critical dimensions of people, product, position, profitability, and problems. 

The innovation vision must be clearly communicated and proper reporting systems put in place to ensure execution.  In doing so, the CEO must drive the mandate for innovation though the entire management team all the way to each individual worker such that everyone understands the corporate agenda and what is their personal contribution to the corporate goals.

What are typical behaviors seen in organizations that have strong executive leadership behind their innovation programs?  Here are a few of the key indicators that a company is serious about making innovation value driving core competence.

Investment in People
High performance innovation organizations recognize the knowledge workers need to be equipped to deliver on their innovation goals.  Organizations that are leaders in innovation practice develop their internal innovation capabilities by providing innovation best practice training.  Companies like Hewlett Packard, Samsung, and Dow have invested in training programs to help disseminate innovation expertise throughout the enterprise.  Executives must ensure that the mission of developing these fundamental skills has a defined home in the organization.

Meaningful Recognition Program
To encourage any new behavior it is important to reward the behavior you want.  Executives must ensure that this goes beyond the occasional attaboy and that those who distinguish themselves as avatars of the innovation culture you are trying to create are publicly rewarded for their contribution.  Leggett & Platt has elevated the visibility of innovation success through their annual technology forum where they also spotlight the winner of the prestigious J. P. Leggett Innovators Award, while seeing Delphi’s Inventor’s Wall of Fame, you can’t help but feel the depth of the company’s commitment to its innovation contributors.  Still other companies tie innovation achievement to earnings or bonus programs.  What ever means is selected, it is important for innovation workers to feel that their contribution is highly valued.

Investment in Infrastructure to Support Sustainable Innovation
My father always advised me to select the right tool for the job.  This is just as true for innovation as it is for any other endeavor.  The easier you make it for your knowledge workers to adopt the disciplines of repeatable innovation, the greater your return on innovation.  This infrastructure should both support your innovation best practices though methodology support and help you leverage internal and external knowledge sources.

Clear Communication of Corporate Objectives
Mentioned earlier, this bears repeating.  All too often investment is wasted on ideas that are doomed from the start because they are not aligned with the needs of the company.  Innovation workers must understand how their role contributes to the corporate goals if they are to be able to integrate corporate strategy into their evaluation of possible innovation paths.  Recently, I was talking to some engineers at Intel.  I was singularly impressed with how every person and every level spoke about the business relevance of their work and how that tied back to innovation.  Now, that’s execution.

Promotion of the Value of Innovation
Workers need to know that their efforts have made a difference.  Managers need to know that they are meeting objectives.  Executives need to understand how innovation execution is driving corporate value.  Measure your innovation success and make the results known.  Executive must inform their workers to achieve maximal performance.  This type of communication not only inspires employees and makes them feel proud of their accomplishments, but also motivates them by making it clear that the company values results.

Pervasive Innovation
What makes Tiger Woods the best?  Practice.  Practice makes perfect, permanent, and predictable.  To build a truly sustainable innovation culture, workers must practice innovation in everything they do.  Constantly employing innovation best practices for small challenges, will prepare them to tackle the big issues.  For managers, this means they must support innovation workers in this activity and not subtly discourage the development of innovation competence by pushing employees to short circuit the solution process.  Executives must show their commitment to doing things right the first time.

As you can see, there are many ways that management can drive the growth of the sustainable culture of innovation that will put their company in the ranks of the high performance innovation companies.  Executives, starting with the CEO, must recognize that they can not be absent from the innovation program.  They must lead it.  They must make the call for a strong innovation culture and program and then follow through with monitoring execution and making sure the innovation mission is a front burner issue for all employees.

FEI Day Two Continued

Well, the conference is winding down.  In another half-hour, it will be history.  The content was very good, and I am glad I was able to attend.  Many sessions were informative, entertaining, or both.

This afternoon’s session on biomimicry was particularly interesting.  John Bradford of Interface gave a passionate account of how his company, the leader in commercial carpet manufacturing came to an epiphany around being a socially responsible corporation and has recast their business ethos.

John discussed the ecological impetus that led to this change in direction, how Interface thinks about energy and recycling in their processes, and how they have used biomimicry to drive strong growth in revenue, profit, and corporate value.  Examples of how Interface evaluates technology, product, and process choices along various dimensions of an eco-impact footprint were also shown.

I found this session to be a standout because of the growing attention to green initiatives in companies globally.  The sustainability agenda is emerging as a front burner business issue, and companies are faced with difficult challenges in meeting this agenda without undermining their business objectives.  Interface is an interest case studying in how an established company can use innovation as a key driver for being both financially effective and socially responsible.

This is my last post from FEI; I hope you found the coverage interesting.

FEI Day Two

I am still at the Front End of Innovation conference today.  This morning features a number for plenary sessions covering an array of innovation topics.

First up is A. G. Lafley, Chairman and CEO of P&G.  He has recently written a book: “The Game-Changer: How You Can Drive Revenue and Profit Growth with Innovation.”

A. G. is winding down as I write this.  He has made some very interesting observations in this interview format session.  He has described how P&G adopted more customer-centric innovation process.  He also says that getting ideas is not the problem; it is the process of transforming ideas into successfully delivered products.  Certainly, the impact of P&G’s innovation transition is stunning.  They have improved from a 15% new product introduction success rate to a 50% success rate.

A. G. identifies the company’s two most important constituencies as customers and employees.  More interesting however, is the notion that for P&G, a company widely noted for its open innovation initiative, employees are the most important source of innovation.

Lastly, A.G. states that the CEO must be the Chief Innovation Officer.  This is a key point and one that I will be reiterating later this week when I post on the role of executive leadership as the first pillar of sustainable innovation culture.

And Still More from the Front End of Innovation

Trisha Pergande of General Mills gave an interesting presentation on her company’s experience in improving its innovation capability.  Trisha explained that theirs is a mature industry and thus innovation is very important to fuel growth.  But, General Mills found that its approach to innovation was not very good.  It was slow, random and characterized by a lot of re-creation.  General Mills needed a repeatable method.

In thinking about their problem, they considered the Stage Gate process as a framework; they felt that Stage Gate was strong once you have the idea.  They wanted to employ Stage Gate, but their problem was in finding the initial ideas.  In response to this, they implemented a specific program for the front end of the process.  As Trisha put it, “The fuzzy frontend doesn’t have to be fuzzy.”

The key to General Mills’ approach is embodied in two elements:

Developing internal innovation skills
Cross functional internal consulting teams (called iSquad) were established.  These teams are leveraged resources that help across the enterprise on innovation problems.  The consulting team owns and develops innovation expertise.  However, a critical success factor to General Mills’ approach is that the business units own the outcome.  This ensures that innovation outcomes have a home.

A repeatable best practices approach to innovation (named I³) that defines a path to ideation that can be replicated across innovation teams.  The I³ process aims to identify new product strategies that are highly populated with concepts for implementation.  There are three basic steps to the I³ process: Immersion – understanding the problem by absorbing all available information, Interaction – experiencing the problem and developing customer empathy, and Idea Creation – solving the problem.

One key theme that came through in the presentation was that the I³ process was a transformational catalyst.  It helped more the company from accidental product centric innovation to consumer centric value innovation.

More from the Front End of Innovation

One of the fun aspects of going to a conference is meeting people.  Whether it meeting old friends or new ones, connections provide the leitmotif that accents the event.

This afternoon, I had the pleasure of meeting fellow blogger Jeffery Phillips of Innovate On Purpose.  It was great to put a face to the name, and we had a nice discussion about the challenges of bringing the message of sustainable innovation to organizations.  Jeffery proved to be a engaging in person as he is articulate in his blog posts.

The chance to hear stories form field experience in the form of practitioner presentations is another reason for going to a conference.  This afternoon, I sat in on a very interesting session in the Can Innovation Be Made Predictable track presented by Shane Johnson of Bank of America.  The topic was Six Sigma & Innovation.  This is a subject that gained some serious attention last year when 3M stubbed its toe in the introduction of Six Sigma.

In this session, Shane talked about BofA’s innovation journey.  He described how the organization moved through various stages of innovation maturity—from being strictly focused on uniformity of delivery to investigating innovation methods to exploring how to make innovation a repeatable phenomenon and culminating with cultural transformation for innovation.  Becoming an ambidextrous organization, one that can both delivery reliable quality and drive innovation, has delivered measurable value for the company.

Some of the ways in which BofA measures its innovation results include:

• Units of Innovation Output – such as number of ideas generated, WIP, yield, kill rate, and strategic mix (incremental, strategic, breakthrough)
• Time to Market Impact of Innovation – expressed as average project completion time, average time to launch, average aging (Shane did warn that these measures require careful interpretation in that more strategic and breakthrough innovations tend to need more time to mature.)
• Quality
• Outcome Benefits of Innovation – such as % revenue from new products, percent benefits from new products, number of patents

While BofA is still evaluating the specific metric they use for evaluating the impact of innovation, they are right to place an emphasis on this.

Shane finished his presentation with a summary of key dimensions along which BofA has tweaked it Six Sigma method to better foster innovation.  All in all it was a very interesting story about one company’s journey in to the innovation wilderness.

At The Front End of Innovation

I am at the Front End of Innovation conference today.  This has been a great conference in the past, so I am looking forward to some great presentations.  It is always interesting to contrast different people and their messages in this type of environment.

As I was milling about this morning before going in to the keynote session, a vendor approached me.  She asked me how things were going at Invention Machine (the company I am with) and then began to tell me about her company’s value proposition and method of delivery.  She went on about how they help companies understand the market receptivity though a web based survey technology.  The concept sounded great, but then she revealed a fatal flaw in her company’s method.  The surveys are based entirely on random sampling.  As anyone who has studied polling and sampling can tell you, random sampling in notoriously unreliable—and yet this company was making a conscious decision to go down this path and label it as a strength by claiming to be tapping into the wisdom of the crowd.  Yes, some people just don’t get it.

Fortunately, some people do.  The keynote speech delivered jointly by Gunter Pauli and Janine Benyus was excellent.  The talk was centered on biomimicry—the practice of looking at how nature solves problems for practical idea to use in solving innovation challenges.  Gunter opened the session by saying that the session wasn’t going to be about going green, it was going to be about innovation and driving business.  As he put it, “If you are not innovating, you are going out of business.”  The pair then proceeded to consider a number of bio-phenomenon and discuss the potential business implications of each.

If you missed the conference today but find this topic interesting, John Bradford, VP Operations and R&D for Interface, will give a presentation tomorrow on Interface’s green innovation strategy and their application of biomimicry.  A $1.1 billion global manufacturer of commercial carpets, Interface has doubled its core business through sustainable innovation.