« April 2008 | Main | June 2008 »
Our informal poll on sources of innovation ideas closes Friday, May 23. 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 Monday, May 26.
I am writing a paper to be submitted to the upcoming Japanese TRIZ Symposium. The topic is one that I find very interesting. In short, how do technical advances in computational linguistics change the landscape of innovation practice?
This weekend I sent a draft of an extended abstract to my colleague in Japan to get some feedback on the topic. I was pleased that he liked the topic and the outline for the paper. He also asked for some clarification on two phrases used in the abstract: “information fund” and “accrued global knowledge”. Of course, language differences being what they are, it was no surprise that some questions would arise, but these questions got me to wonder about how many people don’t know about the concept of the Information Fund.
Sometimes referred to as the TRIZ Information Fund, this is a very important concept for all designers, engineers, scientists, and innovators. The idea is really very simple.
In the mid 1940s, an engineer named Genrikh Altshuller had an idea that inventiveness and creativity could be learned. He set out to look for the foundations of creative problem solving by studying the legacy of scientific and engineering invention documented in Russian patents. Through this study, he developed a theory of how problems can be systematically approached and solved inventively. This theory is what is called TRIZ. (Pronounced treez, it is an acronym for the Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadatch which is roughly translated as the theory of inventive problem solving.)
However, as Altshuller worked on his theory, he recognized that having a disciplined approach to innovation was not sufficient to solving problems, nor was having tools such as the inventive principles. He understood that problem solvers needed knowledge of facts -- facts like Bernoulli’s principle or that Sun move from east to west. It is the notion that there exists a body of global knowledge, that scientific and engineering knowledge that is currently known, which is referred to as the information fund.
Of course, Altshuller wasn’t the first person to recognize the importance of learning from those who have gone before us. In a 1676 letter to Robert Hooke, it was Sir Isaac Newton who wrote, “If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” This is the reality of every great innovation.
This is why the Information Fund is so important. In the past, the notion of tapping into accrued global knowledge was impractical. Individuals had to rely on their personal resources to collect information that they could use. Time and technology have changed all that. We live in the information age, and the notion of amassing such a vast collection of leveragable knowledge is not only conceivable, it is a practical reality.
When considering how to construct the architecture your organization’s innovation infrastructure, particular attention should be given to how you have equipped knowledge workers to leverage the information fund. If you are not looking at this seriously, you will be operating at a severe disadvantage compared to leading organizations that are already putting this knowledge into action.
Seth Godin makes an interesting observation in his post today titled “Avoiding the Passion Pop Gulf.” The basic idea being that there are mainstream markets (the Pop arena) and niche markets (the Passion arena). Companies can succeed by targeting the sweet spot of either of these domains. Where they encounter problems is when they find themselves caught in that uncomfortable gray space between the two. In this region, the product lacks the critical mass of attributes to gain traction with either audience.
This concept has a lot of implication as we consider the tension between incremental and radical innovation.
Incremental innovation is targeted at our existing customers. While necessary, it is often viewed as safe and consequently boring. Yet, a company can do extremely well if they are really good at responding to the needs of these “pop” clients for whose market requirements drive the incremental innovation agenda.
Radical innovation usually first targets the leading edge niche clients that will define the future mainstream market. At this early stage, they are akin to the Passion arena that Seth identifies. They have special requirements that if met can create significant value. When the products for these markets can be made attractive to the mainstream customer, the value potential is even greater.
It is often here that companies get trapped. The allure of the value of the leading edge market draws companies toward radical innovation, but the comfort and value potential of the mainstream market pull companies away from the requirements of the leading edge companies. This can result in a watered down innovation—one that is too different for the mainstream client to adopt and yet is not distinct enough to get a solid following among the leading edge clientele.
The prescription to avoid this no man’s land… Be clear on the objectives of each innovation effort. Whether it is intended to be an incremental or radical innovation, keep true to the intent. Don’t try and mix the two. It is very difficult to take a radical innovation successfully to a mainstream audience until you have first successfully delivered it to your targeted early adopters.
Continuing with our discussion of how to build a strong and sustainable innovation culture and program, here are some of the foundational elements that must be addressed to achieve the transformation from accidental innovator to high performance innovation leader. While I will discuss each of these in more depth separately, at a summary level the key factors which must not be ignored (I call these the five pillars of sustainable innovation practice deployment):
Executive Leadership
This is a concept that cannot be overstated. It all starts at the top. Unfortunately, many CEO’s don’t seem to understand what this means and the importance of this to there mission of building corporate value. All too often, the battle cry of innovation rings out, but the top brass fails to follow up with highly visible and tangible involvement in the innovation initiative. The assumption is made that once the priority is identified, it will take care of itself. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In order to take root, the innovation program requires constant care and feeding from the top of the organization.
Skill Development
One of the great tragedies in innovation is the widespread belief that innovation just happens—somehow some bright person gets an idea out of nowhere. What a crock this is, but this is what many people believe. The reality is that innovation is a process. It is a process that can be learned and mastered. Organizations need to understand this and develop the training and resource development programs to build innovation process skills as a core competency in the product research and development teams.
Innovation Infrastructure
Another interesting aspect of the innovation process is that it can be influenced environmentally. By this I am referring to two things in specific. The mastery and correct application of the process can be greatly aided by the use of an innovation platform that reinforces the application of innovation best practices. Also, great innovations happen when the insightful domain expert meets with the confluence of relevant knowledge and it thus able to synthesize something new. With this realization, it should be apparent that the proper use of information technology to help place the innovation worker at the apex of relevant and actionable knowledge when and how they need it is a powerful way to drive the success of innovation efforts.
Network for Innovation Mentoring & Facilitation
There are many aspects to innovation best practices. There are many types of innovation problems. Different problems yield more readily to different solution paradigms. Some types of innovation tasks are performed frequently. Other innovation tasks are only undertaken occasionally. Each innovation worker has a different role to play in the organization. This variability leads to the conclusion that organization über-process must recognize that innovation skills will not be uniformly distributed in the organization. This means that innovation leaders must be leveraged within the enterprise to help knowledge workers bridge the gap between personal innovation skill level and problem solving skill need. An organizational structure to maintain and optimize the leverage of a mentoring and facilitation network is required.
Internal Promotion
People need to see that the efforts of the enterprise are having a meaningful impact. Designers want to know that their efforts are making a contribution to the corporate goal. Executives need to see the return on the investment in innovation. These and other messages of enfranchisement must be constantly communicated and reinforced. A properly executed internal marketing campaign will go a long way to maintain momentum in the innovation program and foster champions of innovation across the enterprise.
These are the critical success factor I have seen that make a difference across a wide variety of industries in successfully deploying an innovation culture. What have you seen?
Next time, we’ll dig a bit deeper into the topic of executive leadership.
Innovation Popcorn
There are parallels visible in all aspects of life. Recently, my personal experiences in the kitchen served as a reminder of how even small changes can have hidden complexities.
Years ago, based on concerns over the possible connection between aluminum exposure and Alzheimer’s disease, my wife requested that we replace all our aluminum cookware with alternative materials. Most of our pots and pans quickly were replaced with shiny new stainless steel versions. However, one pot remained—a pot which we use for one purpose only. We call it the popcorn pot.
A few weeks ago, we finally got around to buying a replacement for the popcorn pot. We were looking forward to trying out the new vessel, and so it was with great ceremony that we inaugurated the new popcorn pot to be. But, all was not well in the land of popcorn. We followed the ritual popping of the corn ceremony to a tee. It was a disaster. The popcorn was poorly popped, many kernels were singed, and there were far too many unpopped kernels.
You wouldn’t think something as simple as changing the pot would have such profound effects, but the evidence was indisputable and barely edible. Could it be that the change in pot technology was incompatible with our method for popping corn? Could the differences in thickness and diameter of the pot’s base be affecting its cooking properties to such a great degree?
It took many experiments with modification of various parameters to test the new corn popping system. Cooking temperature, preheating the pot, amount of oil used in cooking, and the placement of corn were all varied. The initial experiments were dismal failures. Eventually after we stepped back and examined the functional system of popping corn, our persistence paid off. We found a modified cooking method that worked with the new pot. Even better, the new method produced superior popcorn than we had been able to make with the old pot.
So where is the parallel I previously mentioned? Recently, in talking with press and analysts, the topic of green innovation has been a recurring theme. Many companies are beginning to embrace green programs as important initiatives. Green means different things at each company. In many cases, the emphasis of green is finding alterative resources to replace ones that are non-renewable, toxic, eco-harmful, or otherwise considered not socially responsible. The popcorn pot vignette is a good example in miniature of the challenges these organizations facing in going green.
Consider the situation if you were a snack food manufacturer looking at how to respond to the food versus fuel tension that is growing as a result of growing focus on alternative fuels. Recent mandates in the U.S. have created higher demand for corn oil. If you want to replace corn oil in your products, you will quickly realize how big a change that really is. The impact will of this change will be felt in the supply chain and on the processing line. The change may require alterations in formulation of your product to avoid changes in flavor, texture, and aroma. Packaging will need to be altered. The list goes on and on.
The bottom line is that going green creates many innovation challenges. A strong complementary innovation program is needed to achieve the corporate goal. If effect, you need sustainable innovation practice to drive your sustainability initiative. If green initiatives are pursued in this way, companies will find that going green can be the catalyst which leads to greater operational efficiency and new revenue opportunity.
Posted at 07:36 AM in Commentary, High Performance Innovation, Innovation Trends | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog (0) | | Digg This | Save to del.icio.us |