Innovating To Win

Reaction to Perpetuating Innovation Myths

Scott Berkun, author of “the myths of innovation”, has responded to my post last week commenting on his book.  In fairness to Scott, I am posting his reply here rather than leaving it buried in a blog comment.  I have also included some additional commentary.  First, here is Scott’s comment (paragraph breaks inserted for easy reading).

Hi James –

Thanks for mentioning the book. I took the risk of perpetuating myths quite seriously, and I don't think I did what you're suggesting here. Take this for example, from The Myths of Innovation, Chapter 3, pg. 44: "Steve Jobs, founder of Apple and Pixar, was asked 'how do you systematize innovation?' His answer was,

'You don't'(1). This was not what the readers of Business Week expected to hear, but foolish questions often receive disappointing answers. It's as absurd question as asking how to control the weather or herd cards, because those approximate the lack of control and number of variables inherent in innovation. Jobs, or any CEO, might have a system for trying to manage innovation, or a strategy for managing the risks of new ideas, but that's a far cry from systematizing something. I wouldn't call anything with a 50% failure rate a system, would you? The Boeing 777 has jet engines engineered for a guaranteed 99.99% reliability - now that's a system and a methodology. It's true that innovation is riskier than engineering, but that doesn't mean we should use words like system, control, or process so casually.'

Our disagreement might simply be about the words system, method or methodology. The failure rates for P&G, Google, or any poster child of an "innovation system" are extraordinarily high. They throw away many projects and ideas to obtain the handful that ever become products, much less successful ones. I think this is a a misuse of the word "system" or "method". At best what these folks do is expensive, risky and unpredictable. They experiment. And while there is significant work, planning and skill involved to manage experiments well, to call it a method you'd have to have much higher success rates.

You said: "Industry practice provides many very important examples of organizations that have successful implemented innovation programs—programs built on the assertion that innovation is a discipline that can be developed as a competency." Of course. But how many other companies that tried to do exactly the same thing failed? What is the ratio of successful implementations of these "methods" to failed ones? It's very high.

It's no surprise at this point that I find your suggestion I'm propagating a myth entirely unfair and unwarranted. There's little in my book that supports the status quo in any respect, most of my claims are support by research or at least industry anecdote, and I'm baffled at how one chapter, regardless of how awful it might have been, tanks your judgment of the other 9 :)

Best wishes, -Scott

Thanks for your response, Scott.  I do believe you took the risk of perpetuating innovation myths very seriously.  However, care and diligence do not guarantee the result.

First of all, it is a mistake to assert that any individual who has demonstrated some success in business (presumably via innovation) is thereby an expert on innovation.  The idea that organizations must accept low success rates from their innovation efforts is one based on a fundamental failure to understand the mechanisms available to drive high performance innovation.

Let’s consider for a moment one of the organizations you mention in your reply—P&G.  Here we see an organization that was plagued by an 84% failure rate in new product launches.  They realized that they needed to approach things differently and make innovation a core functional competence.  They have implemented many aspects of sustainable innovation practice, and the impact is undeniable.  P&G now enjoy the benefits of a 75% success rate—a stunning improvement by any measure.

While you might say that this is the exception that proves the rule, my observation and experience make it quite clear that this is not the case.  Where companies have made the innovation practice a true priority and not merely window dressing, the results have been predictably very strong.

As to the rest of your book, I have not said anything to suggest that my opinion of the rest of the content is negative.  Quite the contrary, I have said: “In all fairness, this book is a pleasant read.  It is well written, and Berkun’s style connects with the reader.”

However, the issue remains that there are many companies that are not sure what to do about innovation.  Should they embrace a path forward that integrates innovation thinking into their business and operating culture, or should they continue with the status quo and be content with the lack luster performance they see from their current innovation efforts.  It is clear that in the current global market climate, companies cannot afford to be complacent, but there is also a great pressure on these same companies to manage their risks well. 

This is why it is so important for these organizations to understand that there is a better way.  This is why I feel that this chapter of your book is so pivotal to the evolving innovation conversation, and why I have reacted as I have to your book.

Perpetuating Innovation Myths

Working my way through this summer’s reading list, I enjoyed some great books and a few not so great.  One book in particular stands out as a major disappointment.  Scott Berkun’s  “the myths of innovation,” is that book.  This book has received a lot of good commentary in the blogosphere.  So, you might ask why I found it so disappointing.

In all fairness, this book is a pleasant read.  It is well written, and Berkun’s style connects with the reader.  So, what’s wrong with it?

This book perpetuates the most destructive innovation of all.  In chapter 3, Berkun asserts that there is no method for innovation.  In this discussion of the way of innovation, the author reveals a fundamental failure to understand repeatable innovation methods.

The discussion presented jumps from the notion that many people have followed many paths to the ill founded conclusion that there are no maps to help the innovation practitioner to reliably find their way to high-value innovation.  While most organizations are stuck in the quagmire of accidental innovation, this does not establish dispositive proof that there is not a better way, nor does it mean today’s norm is the ideal for tomorrow.

Industry practice provides many very important examples of organizations that have successful implemented innovation programs—programs built on the assertion that innovation is a discipline that can be developed as a competency.  In another book on my summer reading list, “The Game-Changer: How You Can Drive Revenue and Profit Growth with Innovation” (A.G. Lafley and Ram Charan), the Proctor & Gamble program is described.  It is clear that P&G have pursued innovation with the intention of achieving demonstrable competence.  Their results give testimony to the success of their efforts.

There are many other cases which can be cited.  We are all aware of companies that have broken away from the accidental mode of innovation and which have instead pursued with alacrity the path of sustainable innovation practice.  However, for the company that is still hampered by poor innovation practices, it is too easy to feel that being part of the pack of accidental innovators is good enough.  Berkun’s book provides an easy refuge for those who want to justify their status quo.

No, I will not be recommending this book to anyone.  We need to shatter the myths that prop up the barriers to innovation.  All too often the no-innovation-methods myth is used to erect walls that prevent knowledge workers from fulfilling their innovation potential.  Equipped with knowledge of sustainable innovation best practices, these knowledge workers discover the walls around them are nothing more than a Potemkin village.

TRIZ and Innovation – What You Said

Having just recently returned from the Fourth TRIZ Symposium in Japan, I find the result of our latest innovation poll very interesting.  Over 40% of us rate TRIZ as very effective and highly important.  Yet, almost one out of four of us have never even heard of TRIZ.  So, what is TRIZ, and how is it that so many haven’t heard of this innovation method that so many believe is so important?

TRIZ (pronounced treez) is a problem solving methodology.  The name, TRIZ, is an acronym from the original Russian name roughly meaning the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving.  Developed by Genrich Altshuller, TRIZ provides a framework for exploring the nature of a problem and finding an inventive solution.  By studying patent literature as a model of how inventors looked at problems, Altshuller identified a number of tools that can be applied by the innovation practitioner.

Over the years, I have seen many stunning cases of great innovative solutions that have been found through the application of TRIZ.  Practitioners who have experienced this success often credit the richness of the TRIZ tool set and its built in out of the box thinking models.  With mysterious names such as nine screens, ARIZ, ideality, inventive principles just to name a few, the skilled TRIZ practitioner has many ways to reshape a problem into new paradigms of expression that opens doors to new paths of solution creation.  TRIZ also draws heavily of the concept that most inventive solutions are already known, you only need identify them.  As a result, the methodology can be greatly complemented through technology.  (This was the topic of my talk at the TRIZ Symposium.)

So if TRIZ is such a useful tool for innovators, why are so many unaware of it?  Sadly while many innovation workers view themselves as change agents, most people don’t actually want to change.  This paradox prevents many from exploring TRIZ.  TRIZ demands that the practitioner think differently; it demands that you follow new paths to find the truly creative idea that will provide the inventive, differentiated solution you seek.  This can be an uncomfortable road to follow for many.

However, as our survey indicates, many of us have travelled the TRIZ road with strong results.  It is estimate that roughly 1% of the world’s engineers have been exposed to TRIZ.  If you are among those who haven’t heard of it, perhaps you should look into it; if you are among those who find it occasionally useful, perhaps you should ask what others are doing to achieve their broader success.

TRIZ Poll Closing Soon

Our informal poll on what people think about TRIZ as a methodology for innovation closes this Friday.  So if you haven’t cast your vote yet, you better hurry!  You can cast your vote using the Vizu poll widget in the side bar on the left.

A new poll will start on Monday, September 22nd.

An Open Letter & Invitation for McCain and Obama

Now that the conventions are behind us and the race to November is in full swing, people are looking for the meat around the candidates stances on a number of key issues.  One area that is on everyone’s top of mind issues list is the economy.  The global economic climate affects everyone and every business.  We are faced with challenges and conditions unlike those seen in the past.  New challenges need new solutions.

Innovation is essential in driving the solutions that will lead us to a lasting revitalization of our economy.  So, it is no surprise that questions are raised about the need for a comprehensive National Innovation Policy.  But, what should such a policy address to make it truly effective?  So Senators McCain and Obama, what do you think about this important topic? 

You are respectfully invited to respond here, or better yet contact me to record a podcast on the subject to share your vision for driving innovation in America with our community of innovation practitioners and other members of the internet community.  Should it help get your thoughts percolating, here are some of my views on the subject.

Education
Let’s face it.  The most important resource in the new age of global innovation competition is brain-power, and our educational system is failing.  We need to stop flapping our gums and begin transforming our educational system with the objective of producing the type of innovation workers that future economic success requires.

Infrastructure
While there are several potential dimensions to this, here I simply want to highlight the area of high-speed data connectivity.  The rumors of the death of the information age are highly premature.  The growth in demand for information transmission is causing our current infrastructure to creak. It is definitely time to get ahead of this looming problem.

Intellectual Property
We need to ensure that our intellectual property is adequately protected abroad.  At home, we need to retool the PTO to keep up with the volume of applications.

Bayh-Dole Act
This 1980’s legislation should be reconsidered.  It has its staunch defenders, but it wasn’t the right way to accomplish its goal and hasn’t really done so.  For more on this, see "Time To Rethink The Bayh-Dole Act."

Basic Research Support
Funding for basic research support should be strengthened for public research, and R&D credits protected for private research.

Immigration
This is a delicate issue that must be examined carefully.  We just don’t have all the skilled innovation workers to fill our needs today.  So, we do need to provide access to global resources to fuel our innovation engine.  However, any policy must also consider the transportability of innovation skills and the phenomenon of brain-drain.

Open Markets
We provide the most open markets in the world.  We must work to ensure that we have a level playing field and encourage other markets to move in the direction of becoming more open.

Personal Data Privacy
A growing segment of innovation is built on data.  A looming threat is a meltdown in this sector based on poor data protection and personal security provisions.  We should act to fend off this threat before it becomes a difficult problem to address.

Well Senators, we await your response.

A Day at the Fourth TRIZ Symposium in Japan

I spent Wednesday at the Fourth TRIZ Symposium in Japan.  This annual event has grown rapidly to become one of the largest events of its kind.  Of course, the best part of an event like this is the opportunity to get together with so many top tier innovation practitioners.  I always enjoy catching up with old friends and making new ones.

The morning keynote presentation was delivered by Amir Roggel of Intel.  The presentation, “TRIZ Development at Intel Corporation”, provided a fascinating look at how Intel applied one repeatable innovation methodology.  Amir described TRIZ as the key to systematic innovation to drive Intel’s innovation future, and finished his presentation telling attendees, “Intel uses TRIZ effectively; so can you.”

There a number of interesting presentations during the day.  I attended three of them.

Paul Devaraj of Intel talked about the “Test Pogo Pins Reuse Program” that he had worked on.  Paul did a great job of explaining how TRIZ tools helped him solve issues with critical test equipment.

Following Paul’s talk, Professor Toru Nakagawa of Osaka Gakuin University delivered a presentation titled “Extension of USIT in Japan – A New Paradigm for Creative Problem Solving.”  In this session, Toru described the history of USIT a simplified system based on TRIZ and of USITs deployment in Japan.

The afternoon continued with a session titled “A Comparison of the Problem Solving and Creativity Potential Shown in Engineers using TRIZ or Lean/Six Sigma.”  Presented by Paul Filmore from the University of Plymouth, UK, the talked discussed the findings of some comparative studies conducted by Filmore regarding the level of innovation tools offered to practitioners of different methodologies.  Of course given the much publicized problems in deploying 6-sigma at 3M, it probably comes as no surprise that 6-Sigma scored the lowest level of support for creativity.

Finally, my turn to present came at the end of the day.  My paper, “Advances In The Application of Computational Linguistics for TRIZ Practice,” was well received.  Amir Roggel chimed in during the Q&A to confirm the value of applied semantic technology by relating his own use case.

Unfortunately, I could only stay for one day of the Symposium; from what I saw, it is a high quality event.

Kyoto Musings

I am taking the bullet train this morning from Tokyo to Kyoto to go speak at the 2008 Japanese TRIZ Symposium.  While in Japan, I have also had the chance to meet with several members of the Japanese innovation community.  It is interesting to note the differences and similarities in attitude and approach to innovation that can be observed as one touches different geographic regions.
 
Some things are very consistent.  Japan is feeling an economic slowdown after five years of growth.  This has companies thinking about many of the same issues as their Western counterparts.  Companies globally are coming to the realization that innovation is at the core of their competitive sustainability.  But whereas innovation has been only the domain of R&D in looking for new technology and products, some Japanese companies are rethinking their innovation agenda.  The possibility to push innovation skills to production engineers as a way to spur a new wave of efficiency gains is gaining attraction to these organizations.

This is an interesting trend, but these companies should be expanding their vision.  Innovation touches all aspects of what a company does in delivering value to the most important customers in the value chain.  While it is easy to consider the discrete innovation actions as independent event during the product lifecycle, such a viewpoint is self limiting.  Product creation, delivery, and service are interconnected elements of a complex corporate ecosystem of value creation.  As such, companies should consider how to encourage and leverage the connectedness of these activities.

Another trend that I have seen recently in Europe and the US which has been validated in my discussions with Japanese companies is a shift in thinking about knowledge management and its role in innovation.  There is a growing awareness of the fundamental importance of connecting knowledge workers with information.  But, traditional models of knowledge management are viewed as being failed systems.  While thinking in this area is still lagging globally, more and more companies are beginning to understand that a new metaphor of design intent and role based knowledge enablement is needed to break the barriers between knowledge workers and the information they need to formulate new concepts of innovation.

Internal Promotion of Innovation

In our company, there are many aphorisms that our CEO is given to saying.  One of these is very apropos in a discussion of innovation—“If you don’t believe, you gotta leave.”  The idea is very simple; you can’t give your best contribution if you don’t believe in the mission, the opportunity, the team.  If you are charged with establishing an effective, endure, and value building innovation culture, you have not done your job unless you have also addressed the fifth pillar of sustainable innovation culture: 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 is essential to maintaining momentum in the innovation program and fostering champions of innovation across the enterprise.

There are many forms of internal promotion.  The successful architect of the high performance innovation culture uses all of them.

It begins with selling up.  Have you ever noticed how a good salesman always compliments your judgment when you decide to buy?  As you build the organizations innovation capability, never forget that establishing a strong innovation capability require significant, on-going investment.  Naturally, such investments are subject to review as are any investments the organization makes.  This means that clear and measurable return on the innovation investment must be shown to ensure the long term health of the program.  Soft ROI metrics are useful, but you also need to identify hard metrics to really cement the commitment to the path of innovation.  (See “Thinking About Metrics” for some ideas in this area.)  But, metrics alone are not enough.  You need to make sure that the achievements and ROI of the innovation have strong visibility at the C-exec level.  Arm your C-level innovation champion with the anecdotes and data to represent the program in executive forums.  Conduct periodic Innovation Program Reviews for the benefit of the executive team.

Selling outward is just as important.  As much as innovation workers need to have visibility to the corporate goals, they also need feedback to know when their efforts have hit the mark.  Information about innovation success needs to be promulgated throughout the innovation community so that innovation workers can see the impact that they and other innovation teammates have had on the organization.  This sort of information sharing is a very powerful tool of enfranchisement for people.  When employees can see the value of their work, they feel more valuable themselves, they feel a part of something more important, and they feel inspired to reach higher.

Don’t forget to make it personal.  Give individuals and teams that have made a special contribution public recognition.  This reinforces the message that the company values innovation in a very tangible way.  When appropriate, recognition systems should also integrate into the compensation system.

Internal promotion is critical to building the lasting, sustainable innovation program corporations want.  Yet, it remains the most frequently neglected of the Five Pillars of Sustainable Innovation Culture.