Commentary by James Todhunter

Community and Web 2.0 continue to be a recurrent theme in many of the conversations I have with innovation leaders. Helping innovation workers leverage each other is extremely important. The value of intellectual assets within most companies is largely untapped. Designers and engineers need better connectivity to the knowledge that will speed them toward value creating innovations.

In many organizations, the response to this need is to create internal innovation networks. Often ad hoc in nature, the success of these networks has been spotty. Even so, participants are often very excited because even a drop of water is joyous to the parched soul. Information technology can help add significant value to the internal information network, but care must be taken in understanding what needs must be met.

Traditional knowledge management initiatives are broadly viewed as having failed to deliver the goods when it comes to innovation. IT groups have, in good faith, built impressive infrastructures for knowledge management; yet, workers are still frustrated by an inability to get at information effectively when they need it. This is large because the traditional approach builds the access paradigm on models of physical data deployment and arbitrary taxonomy rather that the mental models of access held by knowledge consumers.

Information becomes actionable knowledge only when it is delivered to the knowledge worker when it is needed, in the form it is needed, and in the context of the knowledge worker job. Once the knowledge management system requires the worker to leave their work paradigm and adapt to the model of the data delivery system, the effectiveness of the system is severely undermined.

So, what is to be done to empower innovation practitioners to connect with knowledge and each other? Here are a few tips to answer the question.

1. Build knowledge management structures around the jobs and thought models of the workers

2. Provide active concept delivery systems – toss out the old and failed search metaphor – anticipate knowledge needs and integrate concept delivery seamlessly into the innovation workers tasks

3. Think Passive – build an internal innovation network, but don't be satisfied with an approach that requires workers to actively look for help. Make sure your network is designed to reach out to workers and connect them not just to knowledge but also to each other.

The theme here is simple. Innovation thrives when the innovation workers are enabled through knowledge and community connections. But, these facilities must be provided in a way that support the work of these designers and engineers, and not one that adds more hurdles.

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

If Bruce Nussbaum's recent posts on the death of innovation have done nothing else, they have generated a lot of reactions in the blogosphere. Although that inner voice is shouting "Enough already!", I can't resist making one more comment on the subject.

There have been some very nice pieces written on this topic in past two weeks. You can find some great examples of these at CounterNotions, Fleishman-Hillard Innovation, and here (of course!). In Kathie Thomas' post (Fleishman-Hillard), she referenced a passage from Bruce's arguments for transformation that I found particularly amusing. The passage reads:

"Innovation" implies changing what is. "Transformation" implies creating what's new. That's what we need today, a huge amount of totally "new."

Well Bruce, let me help you out. Let's crack open the dictionary and see what we find. Hmm… Oh yes, here we go.

in•no•va•tion \i-nə-vā-shən\ noun
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty

trans•for•ma•tion \tran(t)s-fər-mā-shən, -fȯr-\ noun
1: an act, process, or instance of transforming or being transformed
2: false hair worn especially by a woman to replace or supplement natural hair
3 a (1): the operation of changing (as by rotation or mapping) one configuration or expression into another in accordance with a mathematical rule ; especially : a change of variables or coordinates in which a function of new variables or coordinates is substituted for each original variable or coordinate (2): the formula that effects a transformation b: function 5a c: an operation that converts (as by insertion, deletion, or permutation) one grammatical string (as a sentence) into another ; also : a formal statement of such an operation
4: genetic modification of a bacterium by incorporation of free DNA from another bacterial cell; also : genetic modification of a cell by the uptake and incorporation of exogenous DNA

As you can see, Bruce, you have simply got your definitions backward. Innovation is the creation of something new; transformation is the act of changing something in to a different state which may or may not represent something new. If "totally new" is your prescription, then innovation is the cure for what ails you.

Meanwhile, the EU has pronounced 2009 to be the Year of Creativity and Innovation.

Enough said?

[Definitions excerpted from Merriam-Webster Online]

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

The Boston Consulting Group has released their latest report on innovation, "Innovation 2008: Is the Tide Turning?" As always, the BCG report provides some great insights on the state of innovation in business.

There are plenty of very interesting insights in the report. It is a quick read and definitely worth it. Some highlights of the report are:

• Innovation remains at the top of corporate agendas. Roughly 2/3 of respondents identify innovation among there top three priorities.
  
• However, executive satisfaction with return on innovation is on the decline with only 43% of respondents saying they are satisfied with the financial return on innovation. Yet, there is a disconnect with the top of the executive hierarchy. Chairpersons, CEOs, and president as a group expressed overall satisfaction.
  
• The three biggest impediments to innovation were reports as long development time, risk-averse cultural bias, and difficulty with selection of the right ideas to pursue.

There is a lot of good detail in the report that shed further light on some of the initial observations. Of course, it comes as no surprise that innovation is still a top of mind urgency with companies. With leading companies fending off the multiple challenges of aging products and intellectual property, loss of key expertise due to shifting workforce demographics, new and determined competitive threats from emerging participants in the global economy, and financial pressures of a difficult economic climate, innovation is a necessary element in the prescription for corporate health.

The trend of the past few years showing continued erosion in satisfaction levels with the return on innovation is of great concern. Coupled with the corresponding decline in companies planning on increasing investment in innovation, it suggests that many companies are finding it difficult to establish sustainable innovation programs. Too many companies are spinning their wheels as they find driving their companies out of the mud and muck of accidental innovation to be harder than they first thought.

One clue as to what is behind this can be found in the results of the survey's question about how companies measure innovation success. The top three responses were customer satisfaction, percentage of sales from new products, and overall revenue growth. These are all very important measures of a company's management execution, but they are not necessarily accurate measures of innovation success. Innovation metrics must be both specific and verifiably incremental. (That is to say if your innovation isn't making a measurable difference, what's the point?) Even more to the point is that measures such as new product success ratios and time to market ranked near the bottom of the list.

A quick look at the top three impediments to innovation underscores the importance of good sustainable innovation practice. Systematic innovation shortens development cycles. Innovation best practices reduce and eliminate risks. Sustainable innovation is built upon alignment of innovation with corporate objectives, customer aspirations, congruence with the opportunity space, and maximally leveraging available technology and knowledge—all making optimal idea selection a natural process.

You can find the report here.

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

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.

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

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.

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

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.

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

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.

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

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.

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

Social policy has long been influenced by the Broken Window Theory. Strangely, I see a similar phenomenon at work in our innovation neighborhood. I see the evidence in the language of the discussion that is used.

Usually, I don't like to engage in what could be called a semantic debate, but in some cases, it can be important. Language is very powerful. It frames both our discourse and our thinking. A few rightly chosen words have the power to inspire. Alternately, a few carelessly chosen words can start us on a slippery slope towards apathy and resignation.

In "Seven Habits of Highly Innovative People," I named "accept nothing less than success" as one of the traits I see in great innovators. The message is simple. Innovation is hard work. It takes dogged determination to see it through. While it is important to learn how to fail fast, it is even more important to learn when to do so and when to stick it out. Thomas Edison said it best, "Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up."

Yet, we still hear many people espousing the philosophy of failure as a key tenant of the innovators lot. In yesterday's New York Times article "The Risk of Innovation: Will Anyone Embrace It?", G. Pascal Zachary writes about the challenge of the innovator to predict the success of a new market innovation. Zachary goes on to say, "FOR technological innovators, the cash register can ring either way. They may achieve a smash-hit breakthrough, or simply make a slight improvement in a technology that humans already feel comfortable with. Most innovators no longer even try to predict human reactions to their creations." He punctuates this last comment by quoting Henry Kressel, a partner at Warburg Pincus and a co-author of "Competing for the Future: How Digital Innovations Are Changing the World," as saying, "You throw technologies into the market and see what sticks."

It would be a sad state of affairs if product development and innovation were truly the game of random chance that Zachary describes. But, it is not. How many times have you seen a big product launch fail miserable that caused you to wonder, "What were they thinking?" How many times have you looked at a case study that concluded the poor outcome could have been avoided if the people involved had only consider some factor that in retrospect should have been obvious. Sure, hindsight is 20/20. But that doesn't mean that big failures aren't the result of poor execution.

Good adherence to and execution of repeatable innovation best practices yields superior results. This is an undeniable fact that has been shown in many research reports. If you recognize the need to innovate, then there is a clear path that avoids slogging through the muck, mire, and poor returns of the accidental innovation morass.

Eschew the temptation to accept mediocrity in innovation accomplishment by chanting the simple innovation means failure refrain. Every act of accepting the status quo in favor of investing in sustainable innovation mastery creates another broken window in our innovation neighbor and inures us to the gradual descent into the accident innovation abyss.

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

A very insightful article appears in BusinessWeek online titled "The Long Nose of Innovation." Written by Bill Buxton of Microsoft, the article discuss the fact that great innovations don't just happen, but rather they are the consequence of many events leading up to the eventual introduction of the high-value manifestation of the concept.

Bill cites the examples of the mouse and RISC technology to show how the time between invention and successful delivery of an innovation maybe many years (thirty in the cases cited). These are good examples and of course they are far from unique. History teaches us that there are very discernable and predictable patterns of evolution that inventions follow as they mature. One doesn't have to look far to see the evidence of this in the many things we take for granted everyday such as electric light, digital photography, and so many other things.

Consider the lowly ballpoint pen… The John Laud patented designs for a ballpoint type pen in 1888. However, the state of ink making was not well enough advanced to allow his device to be practical. It wasn't until nearly 50 years later when the Brio brothers developed new designs and new ink formulations that the ballpoint pen took its next big step forward toward viability.

Invention is not enough. Innovation is the process of deriving value from invention. Where invention, application, and support systems intersect is where value, and hence innovation, is found. This is the clear message of history that is played out time and time again in the present.

Bill closes his article with a particularly interesting observation. He states, "To my mind, at least, those who can shorten the nose by 10% to 20% make at least as great a contribution as those who had the initial idea." Here, Bill has given some very good direction for innovators.

There is a predictable and visible future. The elements that make up this future exist today. The ability to see that predictable future and understand the path from immature technology to successful product is a high value component of sustainable innovation practice. This ability is something that the average innovation practitioner is capable of developing through a combination of the right technical infrastructure aggregate a view into the current state of a technology and the application of proven methodologies for analyzing the evolutionary tendencies of technologies.

The value of the opportunities you will miss if you don't integrate this skill into your innovation tool bag is huge. (See "The Tyranny of Either-Or" for one such example.) So now the question is, what are you doing to recognize and act upon opportunities to shorten the long nose of innovation?

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

I stumbled across an article on Forbes discussing "The 20 Most Important Questions In Business". The importance of innovation to a businesses strategy is underscored by this list of questions. Here are some of the questions identified by Forbes that make that very clear:

How good is your value proposition?
What is your product differentiation?
What are the competitive threats?
What are your strengths & weaknesses?
How will you protect your intellectual property?
How committed are you to success?

These questions are interesting because what is more important than merely asking them is what you do about the answers. For these questions in particular, your strategy and approach to innovation is a key driver in changing the shape of your predictable outcomes.

How are you building innovation competence to extend your value proposition? What innovations in your product pipeline are creating sustainable differentiation? How do your innovation best practices help you anticipate competition rather than react? Are your innovation programs capitalizing on your process and technology competencies; are they shoring up the weaknesses in you organization? Do your innovation programs build persistent value through strong IP, and are you looking for opportunities where competitors have failed to do the same? Are you doing all of these things with the confidence that you have a sustainable innovation culture that will continue to deliver these benefits?

If your answers to any of these questions are uncertain, then the state of your innovation capabilities does not speak to your commitment to success. It's time to make a commitment to innovation as a critical success factor in driving your business.

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

"Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece."
-- Ralph Charell

Crowdsourcing seems to be a popular topic these days. But, I can't help thinking that its popularity will be short lived. There doesn't seem to be any credible evidence to support this practice as being particularly productive.

Certainly no one can expect that the random crowd will demonstrate great insight and wisdom in helping to solve a problem. There are innumerable examples that show exactly the opposite to be true. Two well know examples of this are the 1630's Dutch tulip frenzy and the witch-mania that was common throughout the Renaissance and Reformation periods. History teaches us that the wisdom of the crown is a fiction and that the intelligence of the mob regresses to the mean.

While one can not rule out the possibility that a truly great concept may emerge from a lone voice within the crowd, this method of searching for great innovations can not be called efficient or repeatable. The crowd does not know or feel your pain; they know not what your goals are or what you value. This method is well likened to the search for the needle in the haystack--the larger the crowd, the larger and messier the haystack.

Some people suggest that crowdsourcing is a natural extension of team collaboration. But this is not so. The dynamics of the crowd are not related to those of the team. More of the same is not the same.

The best achievements in sustainable innovation are seen in those organizations that understand that the quest for innovation can not be divorced from internal expertise. This is not to say that external knowledge and contribution is not of value. In fact, the integration of external concept sources is vital to breaking free of natural inertial forces that develop within organizations. But this integration must be done in a rational manner guided by the in depth understanding of the enterprises capabilities, objectives, and the needs of the client.

What do you think about crowdsourcing?

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

It seems every time I scan the recent blog postings on innovation, I see at least one or two posts declaring patents are stifling innovation. This certainly wasn't the intent of the patent system. To the contrary, the idea was that by providing the temporary monopoly granted by a patent, the cause of innovation would be advanced by publishing the latest state of the art so that other innovator could learn.

In a brightly lit room somewhere, the question is asked, "So, how does this patent busting method work?"

"It is really quite simple," comes the reply. "The Doctrine of Equivalents and its application in case law give us very good guidance as to how you can break through a competitive IP barrier. In short, if you follow a simple 3 step process you will rarely fail to find a new non-infringing way to accomplish the goal.

"One, Identify each of the independent claims of the patent in question.

"Two, Model each claim so that its design intent is unambiguously represented.

"Three, Refactor each modeled claim consistent with the principles of the Doctrine of Equivalents.

"Your newly refactored set of models now represent potentially distinct, non-infringing IP. Of course, there are a few subtleties to this method, and you should always run your new invention by your patent group to be doubly sure, but that is essentially the way it works."

Although this conversation might sound like a work of fiction, it isn't. I can't even count the number of time I have had this conversation over the years, nor can I count the number of time I have discussed the results people have had applying this and other similar methods.

Yes, it seems clear to me that patents are a springboard for innovation. If you have the right tools and understand the associated best practices, patents represent a rich source of ideas to spur innovation.

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

Innovation consultant and occasional blogger Jim Belfiore is teasing us with "Why Johnny Can't Innovate – Introductory Article." In this post, Jim promises to deliver us some interesting insights into the challenges that keep engineers and designers from become successful practitioners of repeatable innovation methods.

Six key factors are introduced:

• lack of incentive
• lack of time
• lack of domain knowledge
• lack of innovation skills experience
• lack of simple access to critical information
• lack of vision (i.e. not looking beyond the immediate need)

These are certainly some interesting problems to consider. I have had the pleasure of knowing Jim for five years now, and we regularly talk about what we are seeing in the landscape of commercial innovation practice. So, it is with that understanding of Jim's experience that I am expecting his series to be very interesting, and I am waiting for the first installment.

Of course, thinking about these issues makes me want to ask all of you a question. What do you see as the greatest innovation challenge that you see on a regular basis? Let's hear it. Inquiring minds want to know.

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

Everything is new at one time or another. Of course, nothing stays that way. I am reminded of this everyday. However, it is easy to forget the innovations of the past as progress continues at its every quickening pace and yesterday's breakthroughs fade into obscurity. I was reminded of this point when I read "Techno Samhain" by fellow blogger and occasional commenter on Innovating To Win, Jim Belfiore. As I read the piece, two thoughts filled my head.

The first thought was how little many designers and innovation workers think about the past. This is really a shame because all innovations build on the past. If you don't have a good understanding of the past and the patterns represented by that past, you won't be able to capitalize on it or avoid the mistakes of your predecessors. The appreciation of the past is at the core of many innovation disciplines.

TRIZ for example is a direct distillation of the past so to speak. Many of the core elements of TRIZ come from a focused study of the past as represented by patent documents. That past is distilled and captured in a variety of TRIZ tools that form the foundation of the methodology.

The other second thought was how quickly we not only forget but also devalue the innovations of the past. I have seen numerous statements calling for the abandonment of the light bulb as the symbol of innovation. Oh, how the once mighty light bulb has fallen in the estimation of the modern practitioner.

The light bulb and its attendant infrastructure ecosystem have been truly transformational in the impact that has been felt by mankind around the globe. We have emerged from the dark, not only figuratively, but quite literally. Yet in the span of 127 years, the incandescent electric light bulb has gone from liberating technology to trite and antiquated symbol of innovation.

Personally, I like the light bulb. I think it represents a rich tradition of innovation and the transformational power that forward thinking can have. Don't you?

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

Well, it's official. Yesterday, Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, the first baby-boomer, filed for Social Security benefits. She becomes the first of as many as 80 million individuals who will qualify for benefits in the coming years.

This should be a major wake up call for corporations. With many of their most experienced and capable workers moving ineluctably towards retirement, companies must consider what this means to their capacity to innovate. Don't fool yourself by thinking that these are stodgy old geezers who have passed their prime. These people are many of your most creative and valuable resources.

Have you thought of how you will capture their expertise and pass it on to the next generation of innovation workers? What does your enterprise know, and how can you mobilize that knowledge? Are your innovation systems capable of feeding the ideation engine in real time, or will your product pipelines run dry just when you need revenue stimulation most?

Are you addressing these questions? Or, are you getting ready to hit the beach and go fishing?

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

In the September issue of the Harvard Business Review (one of my favorite publications), there is a short article titled "Innovate Faster by Melding Design and Strategy" by Ravi Chhatpar of Frog Design. In the article, Ravi suggests that innovation moves along more rapidly and effectively when designers are included in the strategic planning process. Specifically, Ravi highlights the value of having designers iterate through many prototypes as a way of refining strategic thinking while that thinking is still malleable.

There is no question that coupling strategic planning and design is key to well-formed innovation best practices. The input from the design process early in the strategic planning cycle can provide very valuable insights in to right-to-market fit, feasibility, and cost. Similarly, the flow of strategic input into the design process helps to ensure the correct alignment between the strategic intent of the product effort and its execution.

However, there is a key point that should not be missed—a point that Ravi only hints at when he states in his example, "We explored nearly 100 ideas, from the basic to wild, and then used prototypes to investigate the most compelling." The point is that prototyping is very expensive, and a well designed innovation practice should seek to vet concepts before going to prototype.

The concepts can be pre-validated in a number of ways. Assessment of alignment with corporate objectives, congruence with technical parameters, external validation points of similar solution frameworks, and many other measures can provide simple and accurate ways to rank ideas and focus attention on those which are most promising.

Innovation best practices must include the mechanism to provide for definition and capture of the appropriate metrics by which concepts will be evaluated and the process for the application of those measures. This mechanism should be integrated with the ideation process which should span across the strategic planning and design functions. Only through the rigorous application of such a vetting and evaluation system, can organizations fully benefit from a high-performance informed innovation process.

So as Ravi says, get the designers involved early and often in strategic planning. However, don't forget to arm the designers with the tools and processes to allow them to rapidly zero in on the right concepts and thereby be effective contributors to the planning process.

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

Recently, a colleague asked me if the Patterns of System Evolution from TRIZ could be used by non-TRIZ practitioners. At first the question struck me as being rather odd; it seemed sort of like asking if a map could be used by someone who was not a cartographer. But as I thought about his question, I realized that a non-TRIZ practitioner might find some of the TRIZ tools mystifying. However, the Patterns of System Evolution (Patterns for short), like many of the TRIZ tools, are useful to anyone.

The Patterns are very simple in nature, and yet some people find them challenging to apply. Why is that? For the novice, there is a generic challenge to applying some TRIZ tools. The general TRIZ approach to problem solving involves a three step process: 1) convert the specific problem into a generalized TRIZ problem, 2) use TRIZ tools to identify a generalized TRIZ solution, 3) convert the generalized TRIZ solution into a specific instance of a solution for the original problem. It is this last step that most people find challenging. People tend to be very good at making generalizations, but most of us have difficulties mapping a generalization back to a specific instance.

However, the Patterns are well worth exploring despite this inherent challenge. The Patterns can be very useful in tackling many important innovation tasks including: identifying next generation products, technology road mapping, and identifying new markets for existing technology. How does this work? First consider what the Patterns are.

The Patterns are a distillation of patent analysis that observe that different types of technical systems have a tendency to evolve in predictable ways. An understanding of the Patterns coupled with knowledge of the system you are examining can give you a clear view in to the future.

Let's consider a practical example. One of the Patterns is that of Substance Segmentation. What this pattern tells us it that in a physical system, a substance may begin as a solid monolithic substance, but in time will tend to be replaced by a discretely segmented substance, then a powder or liquid, then gas or plasma, and eventually a field of some type. Examples of this progression are easy to identify. If you consider a simple surgical bone saw, it is clear that the substance segmentation pattern precisely maps to the documented innovations in that technology—innovations such as coating blades with abrasive powders, using liquid water jets for cutting, and eventually the use of ultrasound and laser technology.

This sort of exercise is not merely of intellectual interest, it is of great practical value. The TRIZ Patterns of System Evolution have been used repeatedly by innovation practitioners around the world to explore the predictable future.

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

Over on the Innovate On Purpose blog, Jeffrey Phillips talks about making ideation productive. He makes three key points.

First, enterprises should take on a proactive approach to innovation. This is undeniably true. The practice of waiting for the next great idea to spring up and present itself is a strategy for failure. All too many companies are lured into this mode of operation because it fits the mental model promulgated by our popular innovation mythology—a situation made worse by the occasional success we perceive when a rare good idea seemingly falls into someone else's lap.

The reality of innovation is quite different however. Successful innovators put great time and energy into their art and pursue it with purposeful intent. This is exactly what organizations must do to successfully implant the seeds of a growing and healthy innovation culture that will contribute to corporate value.

The second point Jeffery makes is that organizations need to tell their members what challenges they would like to solve. This is also true, but it is only half of the requirement. It is not enough to communicate the nature of the challenge. Innovation workers must also be made aware of the context of the challenge. This context must include the reason the challenge is important, the vision for the desired future state after the challenge is met, and the metrics for success of the innovation. The more information the innovation workers have, the more easily they will be able to navigate the myriad of possible solutions and zero in on the right solution for the organization.

The final point is that organizations should prepare their innovation workers for the task ahead. Jeffery cites the example of giving people a reading list ahead of a brainstorming session, and he uses a cooking analogy to make his point. This is spot on advice. Informed innovation practice is part of the successful, repeatable innovation disciplines companies need to develop. What companies should be gleaning from this point however goes beyond the notion of preparing for a singular innovation exercise like a brainstorming session. Rather, companies need to consider how to create the environment that supports nimble innovation in an informed manner.

To accomplish this, companies need to embrace an innovation information infrastructure that bring together knowledge from both within and outside the enterprise and provides innovation workers with precision, on-demand access to the information that is relevant to the challenges they are addressing. By putting the right information in the right hands at the right time, companies can improve confidence that the right decisions will be made the first time.

Clearly, Jeffrey made some good points here. But, he should have taken his food analogy one step further.

Consider the parallel between innovation and dieting. Why do most people fail to manage their weight with diets? The answer is simple. Dieting creates a temporary and artificial environment. Dieters feel heighten awareness of their cravings because of the sense of deprivation created by the diet; so much so that most people find it difficult to stay a diet. Those that do stay on their diet tend to regain the weight lost because once they have met their diet objective, they slip back into the old eating habits that caused them to need to diet in the first place.

The same factors can be seen in the many of the half-hearted innovation initiatives that we see some companies announce. The initiative is a temporary deviation from the accepted cultural practice. As a result, there is great internal resistance to the program, and once the program is finished, old innovation habits return.

This is why successfully establishing innovation as a core competence can not be pursued with a simple initiative or slogan. It must be viewed as a change to the life-style habits of the organization. Innovation must cease being a special activity that occasionally has the spotlight cast on it. Innovation must become part of the organizational fabric and ethos—something as natural as breathing.

[Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

Here are a few common statements that signal serious problems in a company's innovation program.

"We have all the ideas we need."

"We just need to fill the pipeline with more ideas."

"Open innovation is the answer to all our problems."

If you understand why these statements signal an innovation program that is out of control, you will have no problem adding to this list. On the other hand if you are wondering why the statements are so dire, read on. This post is for you.

There is a common misconception that innovation is a numbers game. We are all familiar with the statement that it takes 6000 ideas to eventually lead to one successful product. An unfortunate consequence of the broad exposure this statement has received is that many people believe this statement defines the way things are supposed to be. The reality is that this statement lays bare what is wrong with global innovation practice.

Have you ever thought to yourself, "Why does it take 6000 ideas to find a single winner?" Of course, the answer is fairly obvious. 5,999 of the ideas weren't good. That's right; not all ideas are quality ideas. Perhaps an idea is hackneyed; maybe the idea is already blocked by competitive patents; or perchance the idea is just a poor fit for the company's strategy. Whatever the reason, the vast majority of ideas are just not all that good.

This situation has led many companies to look for mechanisms to increase the rate of idea in-flow. Open innovation is one such response to this phenomenon. When companies are unable to generate game changing ideas internally, they begin to explore the notion that by opening their doors to outside thinking they improve their chances of finding that next great idea. There is merit to this approach. However, this approach does not address the underlying problems—the inefficiency of sourcing ideas and the lack of predictability in the process of idea sourcing.

The bottom line is that we need better ideas, not more ideas. But what does better mean when we are talking about ideas? Simply put, better ideas are ideas that are well aligned with goals and needs, and that are actionable.

In order to find these better ideas, companies need to shift from sifting through a pile of mediocre ideas looking for a problem that might be addressed by one of the ideas, to a directed innovation paradigm. This means beginning with the problem-goal statement and based on that statement, looking for the solution in a disciplined manner. Directed innovation methods focus effort on ideas that are more likely to produce the company value driving results that we all seek.

Through intentional focus, directed innovation helps improve idea generation results in multiple ways:

• Ideas are precisely alignment with the corporate goals and mission.
• Ideas are mapped directly to market and customer goals and objectives.
• Ideas are pre-validated for applicability and feasibility.
• The idea to product conversion ratio is dramatically improved which in turn leads to top-line impact of better time-to-market and right-to-market delivery as well as bottom-line impact through product development program efficiency gains.

The notion that it takes 6000 ideas to find that one great idea evidences a core problem—the claimed plethora of ideas is dominated by weak ideas. To truly break away from the morass of accidental innovation and the threat of being pull down into commodity hell, companies must do better at generating not simply more ideas, but more high-quality ideas. By adopting a directed innovation approach, companies can redefine the rules of the innovation and product development game to their advantage.

[Cross-posted from www.InnovatingToWin.com]

RSS