Dr. Earl R. Smith II
Managing Partner, The Federal Circle
DrSmith@Dr-Smith.com
Dr-Smith.com
There is lots of talk these days about the need for innovation. Two things are important to recognize. One, talking about innovation is not innovative. Saying is not doing. Two, innovation and stimulating a sustainable culture of innovation is far harder than talking about doing so. Doing is much harder than saying.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is much talk of innovation and the challenges of how to stimulate and sustain it. It is one of the questions that transcend the stage of development of a company. It is also a question that should engage the entire team. Nothing affects the fortunes of an organization more than a team’s ability to come to terms and overcome the challenge of maintaining a culture of innovation. The world is simply to fluid and change such a dominate characteristic of the times we live in – innovation is necessary for survival.
Eventually all of my coaching engagements come to focus on the challenge of developing and maintaining a corporate culture that allows it to respond effectively to a rapidly evolving marketplace with a solid emphasis on creating value through innovation. The difficult aspect of this question is that it is very easy to discuss intellectually but implementation of any solution can prove very difficult. As a friend was fond of saying, “an understanding of innovation is, in itself, not innovative”.
Innovation is difficult because it necessitates the collaboration of two very different types of intellects. In order to develop such a culture, creative and the analytical types need to find a way to work effectively together. It is hard to overstate the difficulties that such an effort can encounter.
In my experience, the CEO and COO are two of the most important players in the effort to stimulate a culture of innovation. The third important player in the effort is the Chairman of the Board of Directors. It is this third player that is often overlooked – probably because in many companies the CEO also occupies the role of Chairman. That arrangement precludes an important dynamic – the role of the Board of Directors in the strategic evolution of corporate culture.
One of the principal reasons that this division of responsibilities is important is that most often the CEO and COO fall into the category of ‘analytical types’. Their focus is on essentially and appropriately on the tactical issues which revolve around the implementation of the company’s tactical plan. A strong Board lead by a visionary Chairman will act to counter this imbalance and contribute to the evolution of a culture of innovation. They will break the bottlenecks obstructing the flow of creative ideas.
A company must create a culture where all participants can challenge why something that does not make sense to them. They must be able to ‘think out of the box’. However, my experience has been that not all team members are able to do this effectively – in fact, it is critical that a substantial part of the team focus on thinking inside the box. This group provides the stability and institutional memory of the company – an essential contribution. Others will be better at thinking in new and revolutionary ways. They must come to terms with the importance of this stability and the need to preserve the organizational foundations while exploring and introducing new ways of thinking and operating.
The core issue in a culture of innovation is the relationship between these two groups. For it to function properly, there must be a high level of trust, an easy and direct pattern of communication and a freedom which allows each member of the team to focus their energies on being the best at what they do best.
I have worked with companies that were almost totally populated with ‘creative types’. Never has the term ‘herding cats’ seemed more appropriate. These organizations suffered from a kind of organizational attention deficit disorder. Good ideas were generated in abundance but the company lacked the infrastructure and team members that could turn them into revenue.
I have also worked with companies that were just the opposite – legions of ‘analytical types’. These companies developed a different form of stagnation. They might have been based on a ‘cutting edge’ technology at one time but quickly fell behind the competition.
Some of my engagements have brought me into the role of Chairman while others have found me serving as an advisor to either the Chairman or the CEO. However, in each case, the challenges have been the same – how does the company develop and maintain that essential culture of innovation? How does a company keep either of these types from achieving ascendancy and driving the other off the field? How a company answers these questions, more than any others, determines its future.
© Dr. Earl R. Smith II
~~~~~~~~~~
Related Articles:
- Inspirational Governance
- Good Governance – Keeping Ahead of Fast Company
- Governance By Visionaries
- Developing Visionary Leadership – Board Contributions
- Corporate Talent – Coaching and Retaining the Best
- Visionary Boards of Directors
- Board of Directors – Evolution through Devolution
~~~~~~~~~~
110 Responses to “The Challenge of Cultivating Innovation – Part 1”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Fantastic topic! I am always hired to introduce change – thru innovation – and it is without doubt my nature to take this role. I used to believe that anyone could innovate, that innovation was always a good thing, and that being treated as a maverick, as a crazy, as a savior, an artiste, a destructive influence, was part of the game. Not always so.
Over time I have understood that 99% of people prefer to avoid change; that so-called innovators are only called in when all other avenues are found to be cul-de-sacs; that, like the Pied Piper, one is quickly transformed from a hero into a pariah. There is a basis for this, and I believe it issues from a deep, cultural superstition; innovators are modern-day shaman, standing on the threshold of a mystical world of beautiful success, looking off into the distant future with a knowing twinkle, in a creased eye. Please forgive the poetic wanderings
The Shaman finds himself in a position of knowing that this is not mystical (he has a rational system for managing risk, defining objectives and issues, communication across disciplines, a vast technical knowledge, and a creative imagination), and yet, he can better perform his ‘miracles’ if he supports and perpetuates these heroic myths of epiphany, creative spirit, and so on.
Thus, we find ourselves in a schizoid culture; often it is in fact the chairman, the wise elder, that understands the need for myth, but also the short-comings of continued delusion. And the shamen must also be protected from distraction by the fierce warrior (CEO’s take this position), the champion of the cause.
And I say: Get in, make it rain, take your payment, and get out. Before things get medieval on yo ass…
Lisa Radin wrote:
Perhaps this is why I am having difficulty re-entering the work force after a long stint of consulting. It’s difficult for bureaucrats to ‘see the light’. Companies — they’re made up of many types of people — great, mediocre and not-so-great. Hard to find the great ones. For me — that’s why like consulting, or ad agency types — tend to be more innovative and open to ideas — companies pay for this — vs. breeding internally. Sad, but true. Have already been lucky in the past — crossing my fingers. But, you are right. Most companies just don’t get-it. I have my theories on the why’s — but doesn’t really matter. Lisa
Paul, You raise a very good question. A friend once said that the best playwrights have one good insight that they write about over and over. There may be people who are reflexively innovative – however, I seem to find more who claim to be than are – but I suspect that most innovation occurs when relatively normal people have a good idea and the sense to follow it up. Dr. Smith
Lisa, My difficulty with your suggestion is the type of person who generally finds their way into the ‘innovation thought leader’ slot. Much like the universities who hire a professor of entrepreneurship, the people who fill the role of ‘thought leaders’ tend to be bureaucrats who have an aversion to the kind of disruptive change that innovation can bring. The real problem is that senior management tends to pick people for these jobs with an eye towards mitigating the disruptions. The kind of global connections you recommend then become a vast ‘wet blanket’. Innovation seems to have a mind of its own and often avoids those kinds of controls and pops up where you least expect it – and often among junior staff members onthe way out the door. Dr. Smith
Lisa Radin wrote:
I believe that each company should have an ‘innovation thought-leader’ if not a department. This person, or thing — separate from any one functional department as innovation can occur in any department from manufacturing to sales to marketing to purchasing, etc. And, this department/person should be the connection to all departments — shifting insights throughout the company w/o political bias. I did such and reported to the CEO — bypassing all departments – and feeding info up impacting Wall Street analysts and down – impacting all company departments, plus operating divisions.
I have found when innovation group reports to a particular function — e.g. marketing – it tends to alienate other departments given budget and personalities. It should have its’ own organizational box — reporting high-up, or on equal footing to any other VP level. It’s needs strong political clout – same as others, or won’t be heard, or tolerated. Business is political battlefield – must have defenses set-up to fight change.
Jackie Bertelsen wrote:
Well put about People want to know, but as Leader you must also accept that the innovation process is never on go always, therefor is supporting the innovative mind state a key in making room for innovation. as professional spatial designer I can see that a lot of attention is on making the workspace innovative but I if the inviroment is not supported by true and geniun working culture that allows mental waste and potholes of tryouts your only grasping innovation as a trend and not innovation. I sorry to see that the companies think they can grip innovation – by making somewhat like innovative interior elements in the company. The balance between the cost on education and interior support is underestimated – though the right designed interior can containe a large procentice of just those innovative processes companies spend a lot (lost spended)money on educating their workers
Lisa Radin wrote:
I believe there are 2 types of innovation — identifying trends and relevant ideas and implementing through new developments (product, process, marketing, sales, operations, etc).
Cultivating one vs another is different. For the identification process — it starts with an open mind-set, curiosity and unbiased, non-conventional thinking that can be applied to relatively significant, or minor data and consumer insights. Cultivating this innovation takes a certain type of person — making them more worldly, experienced to openness and oftentimes a part of a persona. Some can be trained, for others its inherent.
Perhaps a middle layer — crunching the standard company information and integrating the fit of ‘the new’ (as mentioned above). What’s this new info / intelligence mean to the bottom line?
Innovation / implementation — those persons who actually implement the innovation — if it falls in new product development — it’s the engineering group /product designers; if it falls in purchasing / suppliers — it’s those folks pushing the envelope; and if falls into advertising / communications it takes the form of messaging and media selection. Within the implementation arena — there’s a mind-set — but also pushing to know the latest & greatest technologies, sources, software and processes.
Innovation is always a function of people. Some are better than others. To leave no stone unturned – to push for excellence — within whatever functional department, or project working on.
Innovations can be tiny, or large. It’s the act of innovating, the desire to do better that drives innovation. It’s often a creative expression. It’s internal — both from company and from person. Cultivate it? Promote it, reward it, recognize it and always have a answer of why can do, or can’t do. People want to know or their brains shut down.
Paul Welsh wrote:
In the past year I have been in three different settings where the parties involved couldn’t even agree on what innovation is. One question that was raised is “Can you be innovative once? Or does it have to happen frequently for an individual or organization to be considered innovative?” I’d appreciate your thoughts Hope it isn’t departing too far from your question.
Dinesh, I agree with the first part o f your comment but not sure about the last part. It seems to me that environments such as the one we are living through destabilize traditional relationships and technologies – making room for innovations to grow – much like a forest fire clears away the old growth to allow the sunlight to reach the ground and the seeds. In ordinary times, it might be more difficult for industries based on disruptive technologies to gain a foothold. A good example might be the reliance on fossil fuel to power automobiles. The economic downturn seems to have combined with the decreasing supply of petroleum to accelerate efforts in battery and fuel-cell research. I would suggest that the combination of ‘waste’ embedded in the old technologies, when combined with the pressure of an economic downturn, make innovation much more likely. Dr. Smith
Dinesh Mishra wrote:
Earl, as you would know from your experience this is a fascinating area. In my experience the key reason for this becoming more of a “good talking point” and not much action/delivery or results is “WASTE”. You cannot have one without the other, innovation cannot be achieved without an environment where there is a tolerance of some level of waste. Most strategy or operations initiatives fall apart because they think asking people to think outside the box and create an idea pool will lead to innovation, instead what it really needs (in my personal experience) is a formal framework within which necessary waste can be managed and informal but clear messaging about innovation being rewarded (both successful and unsuccessful projects). This has never been easy, even more difficult in the current environment. However, the benefits of innovation embedded in a work culture are immense, its down to good management of the programme and a long term commitment to this agenda, not some short term organisational fad (especially prevailant in good times). Innovation as a strategy can work in both good and tough times and there are real life examples of each, though fewer than one would expect!
des.emory.edudes.emory.edu
Thanks for a great set of comment – good discussion.
Paul, I agree that the government has a critical role to play in funding basic research. A good example is the latest administration in the US. They have focused funding on critical technologies that will support new industries and drive job creation. Government employees and researchers in the labs have a wider remit to go where commercial factors would consider high-risk.
John, I think that Thomas Kuhn has it right. In his seminal book ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ has it right. Here is a link to a good summary: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html Gandhi had a political objective – hence the use of the word ‘truth’. I think innovation has more to do with the triumph of utility than truth. I have not found that structure stimulates innovation. the creative gene seems to need to wander – sometimes apparently aimlessly.
Sami, I would make the same recommendation – your comment touches the core of Kuhn’s insight. Kuhn makes the argument that advances do not occur because the ‘old guard’ realizes the wisdom of an innovative approach. It occurs because they lose power and a new power center arises.
Bryan, Leadership is indeed a core issue when it comes to cultivating innovation. One key part of that is leadership which understands the potential within an organization. I have seen leaders try to make an elephant hunt mice – thinking, I would guess, that they were herding cats.
Dr. Smith
bryankorourke.combryankorourke.com
Bryan O’Rourke, MBA wrote:
Innovation requires many ingredients but at its core is the leadership of the organization. From thinking around planning and strategy to the mindsets of stakeholders you engage and how you engage them – these all are contributors to the innovation game and the folks at the top must create a culture that enables a variety of practices. The adoption of Deming’s 14 points (among them driving out fear as Sami accurately observes) is helpful. Creating a culture of learning and risk adoption. Suggest you view this brief video about discovery based planning models to learn more. http://www.bryankorourke.com/journal/2009/10/5/watch-dr-rita-mcgrath-explain-achieving-growth.html
Sami ATIG wrote:
Radically different and disruptive innovations cannot be conceived in an environment which is largely rule based
The most difficult challenges for cultivating innovation is to create a work environment where we feel safe from negative confrontation with prof without any integrity.
alphamagic.org.alphamagic.org.alphamagic.orgalphamagic.orgalphamagic.org.alphamagic.org.alphamagic.orgalphamagic.org
John Crockett wrote:
How do we cultivate Innovation?
I cover that subject some at http://www.alphamagic.org.
How do we tap into the awesome potential of our Other Than Conscious, that part of our brain that is some 3200 times more resourceful than our conscious (Beta).
Henry Ford said” “If You think you can, or you think you can’t, you’re probably Right.”
All Truth Passes through three stages:
First it is Ridiculed,
Second; it is violently opposed,
Third; it is accepted as being self evident.
Mahatma Gandhi.
Empowering Questions are a great tool, discussed some on http://www.alphamagic.org.
For me, my most powerful tool is my personal Success Journal. Many entries in there are about things that I’ve done, that others said were impossible. It’s about 123 pages long, over 1,100 entries. http://www.alphamagic.org/success.
I understand it is an aeronautical engineering fact that bumblebees’ wings are too small for them to fly. Isn’t great that bumblebees don’t know that they can’t fly.
I encourage people to discover the joy of (L)Earning new skills and insights; use ‘common sense’ which seems all to uncommon today. That includes in the area of re-creating vibrant health, realizing that all healing comes from within, so the key is nutrition and detoxifying, as discussed on http://www.alphamagic.org/healing, and also in Healing The Gerson Way, by Charlotte Gerson, daughter of Dr. Max Gerson, who Dr. Albert Schweitzer describes as the most eminent genius in medical history, who had a 40% CURE rate with terminal cancer patients, over 75 years ago, with no pharmaceuticals, no chemo, no surgery, no radiation. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7357629140536485998
How do we cultivate Innovation? We’ve got to get off the the Standard American Diet (S.A.D.), because too many of the ingredients in processed food are serious neuro-toxins, inhibiting independent creating thinking.
John Crockett, jac@alphamagic.org
Paul Young wrote:
i think governmnt, especially in Canada need to revamp their R&D Tax programs. The green shift is becoming part of the new product development.
Stephen Ryan wrote:
Innovation is the precocious inner child let loose to paint the town red.
To cultivate innovation all you need is a bunch of naughty children and a leader with a great deal of compassion.
intrench.blogspot.com
Henry (Ahaen) Wang wrote:
Innovation persistent life style demands self confidence to resist to self-denial. Have you found the saying from Carl Jung, “Life without bargaing with mistakes is not complete.” soothed a bit?
Alessandro Daliana wrote:
Very interesting discussion topic. May I join in?
Innovation in business is definitely a bit of an oxymoron and the different views above express this counter sense quite well. Business in the capitalistic sense is about making a product or service at an ever cheaper cost of production so that profits can be reinvested. Innovation is more about looking at that product or service and doing it in another way; being disruptive of the business model.
The two are constantly at odds with one another, which is why most established businesses do not engage in innovation – incremental improvement is not innovation – but tend to buy companies that do. Conversely, innovative companies, like startups, want to disrupt the way established businesses do business and either displace them or be bought by them.
A now classic example is book retailing, Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Or, the airline industry, low cost airlines versus the “national” carriers. I am sure that you can all think of many different examples so I won’t say any more.
What is interesting to note is that the vast majority of the disruptive force comes from information technology and the displacement of internal business processes to the consumer. In today’s world, the champion business model is “make your customer work for you”. (Maybe Marx was right after all?! LOL)
After having applied this business model to a great many industries, we now see it being implemented in advertising through “social media”. Whomever can crack the secret to keeping consumers on message through social media will make billions because the consumer will be moving the company’s communication along at zero cost.
Anyone have a pill I can swallow that will do my appendectomy?
Pete Hartigan wrote:
Dr Smith -
A culture of innovation (at least in a startup) is like a waterford crystal. It is beautiful when it exists; however, it is fragile … many people involved can take the glass and smash it to the ground, and it will be damaged, often for good … best if nurtured …
Taking a step back however – thank you for starting this discussion and sharing your blog posts – I read the initial five connected to the link above to start … My bias to this discussion is experience as an IT venture capitalist for ~decade at three firms in Silicon Valley & Boston, and as a founder/entrepreneur at three companies – that latest in its fifth year (area – tackling the long standing problem in software for securing applications in the public Internet – today’s market language – cloud os) … as well as a founder for an education non profit in inner city for highschoolers in Oakland CA.
Trust & incentives – are two foundational topics to consider for innovation enablement … There are a variety of atmospheres of trust — intra-company trust (investor / team, etc), extra-company trust (customers & partners / team, etc) … starting with trust between investors (board) & founders for example …
In (some) startups, culture and trust are driven by the founders. Your posts focuses on Chair, CEO, and COO – however, in early stage companies, the founders are key at times & worth consideration as well … Over time however – greatly influenced by the CEO if not a founder, & by the board/investors.
Per your blog posts, many of the founders are in your creative oriented bucket and are the stewards of culture/innovation. Then, professional investors join an entity and (often) fall into your analytical bucket … thus, the dance starts … and the risk of a company innovation-extinguisher increases with this duet’s every interaction (honestly, more than I realized during the first half of my career carrying only investor experience / perspective to the table of collective judgement / decision making).
Innovation at a cultural level (of a startup at least) is one of those items where many have a “veto” right – in that it is very easy to destroy, by destroying the foundation of trust. Look at it like a Maslov’s hierarchy of needs – trust is foundational, innovation, although a process, is also a detail/output which will not occur without a clear line from top to bottom in the hierarchy. Innovation and business success reside higher up the pyramid with the bottom being necessary (not sufficient).
Incentive – one monitor for success enablement for a co. (& innovation) is looking at incentive structure & mgt’s utility/emotion toward the incentives (relative perception is reality in this case) .. Is the team motivated? Are they incented? Really … If investors have added “participating preferred” into the deal – consider a signal of trust-breakdown well/insidously underway … later assume a liquidity event — the output will include an “unexpected” negotiation in regards to a mgt carve out, attacking the value of liquidation preferences … trust breakdown enabled along the way, along with poor communication, broken cap table / terms / incentives … innovation can oddly become an afterthought if incentive & trust foundations are not in place.
Mr. Da Silva’s comment above is also really interesting … one lens is the incentives of a big co. … what I have seen from my end of the spectrum is that larger companies often wait for momentum in the market and buy into a segment vs trying to innovate … “innovation outsourcing” … not a bad strategy really depending … is it b/c it is a better risk-reward profile for the individuals in the larger company? … if others with that domain expertise have thoughts on this topic – it would be very interesting to hear … In larger companies is their typically more incentive not to innovate than innovate? Including a perspective from a personal risk-reward, incentive perspective?
Ron Collis wrote:
Earl,
Excellent topic, The real problem is that CEO’s love to manage and they don’t neccessarily know how to run things. This inturn means they add processes to the administration structure, once a lot of processes has been put in place, innovation disappears. Managers, Accountants and Lawyers are not creative people so they do not understand freedoms needed to be creative.
A good example is Apple, until Steve Jobs was re appointed as CEO, Apple had lost it’s inovation, because of so much process was added by the Accountants and Lawyers.Jobs removed some of the stiffling processes to allow freedom to innovate.
You need just enough process that does not stiffle the innovatative folks, thats the hard balance to get right.
Pete Hartigan wrote:
Very interesting topic area … there are (at least) two other discussions on going re: innovation in the Linked In community, in case of interest to this group as well … topic: “Can Innovation be taught?” … both in CIO group & The Global Innovations Leaders group.
Robert DaSilva wrote:
Very few established companies (1B +) have any *real* interest in true discontinuous innovation…
The CEO and executive suites understand what Schumpeter stated long time ago: Innovation is destructive of capital. At best, they want incremental product and process improvements.
Look at Xerox and PARC. The vast majority of the innovations that are related to the digital technology came from PARC. Yet, very little if any, of that technology had any positive affect on Xerox’s balance sheet but sprung Microsoft, Apple and others into the forefront. Companies which at the time, had little to lose.
Innovation does not as rule comes from an established corporation, but from a garage and someone struggling to find demand and market for his product or idea.
John Murphy wrote:
I have worked with organizations on leading culture change, innovation and transformation for the past 25 years, as both a corporate director and as a business consultant. What I find works best is the “kaizen event” approach. This team-based, data-driven “blitz” on change blends the talk with the walk. Changes that many skeptics think “take months or years” are often done in a matter of days or weeks. To make this work, the people involved have to transcend doubt, fear, resistance and negativity. It is not at all unusual to meet with skepticism early in the process, but with a proven methodology, a useful set of tools and an experienced instructor/facilitator, innovation happens. It wants to happen. The problem is, many people resist it, or deny it, because subconsciously they hold on to fear and doubt in their minds. To innovate, people must learn to “let go” and “let flow.” There is never a shortage of ideas. The art is cultivating a “collective mind and spirit” and implementing the best ideas – quickly. This results in the team wanting to do more – and more people wanting to join the team. Hope this helps!
Kathy Holland wrote:
Dr. Smith…..great topic and yes, Bill, enjoyed (agree with both of) your comments.
Innovation (large scale), I believe, has become stagnant partly because of the elimination of R&D in some corporate structures in order to reallocate this cash towards less productive uses (e.g., excessive compensation/benefit packages and government overspending).
Microfinance is becoming obsolete so there is this shift in where funding can be found for those innovative ideas with long-term potential.
The current recession is putting pressure on our society to become innovative and as I read the newspapers, this is happening….slowly. Innovation arises from the carnage in incremental steps. On a number of occasions, I have worked for others where ‘product enhancement’ ideas have came to my mind, yet not followed up on. I am currently trying to pursue one that I need to ascertain a price for and the appropriate party to approach with my idea.
Unfortunately, due to lack of transparency and collaborative communications with ‘highly effective’ and ‘outside-the box thinking’ individuals, the US has experienced no new jobs since the early 2000s. Innovation does not happen overnight so we won’t see the true effects on our economy until 2018-2020. Please, don’t anyone hold their breath waiting — action speaks louder than words.
Best,
Kathy
Ivan Yardley wrote:
Dr Smith, I agree with your comments regarding creating a culture of trust to encourage risk taking methodology’s, without this you can not have innovation. I believe that the tone and culture of an organisation comes very much from the leadership of the organisation. This is why I believe the values that the leader has and the way they are expressed are critical in getting the correct leader, at the right time, in the right place – if that make sense?
strathman.comstrathman.com
Bill Petrarca wrote:
I have spent several years studying the concept of creative interchange introduced in the early 20th century by American philosopher Henry Nelson Wieman. Your observations about trust in an innovation culture I believe to be on target. I would add to the discussion that there are at least 4 “enablers” to the kind of culture that facilitiates human creativity–what you refer to as innovation. These are Awareness, Reason, Freedom and the Skills to produce outcomes that feed the attitudes and motivations for creativity. (reference a white paper on this subject: http://www.strathman.com/pdf/expdynamic.pdf )
Sometimes, CEOs talk the talk about innovation, but they don’t walk the walk. People see that and real culture change never happens. My experience is that Skills are critical in any cultural transformation. You can’t expect people to perform the same behaviors and get different results. Behavioral change is critical to change outcomes and attitudes.
Donal Lang wrote:
I’d suggest small, very cheap workshops units attached to an university campus, with mentoring and small subsistance grants.Then invite Business Angels along every quarter to see what’s going on and talk to the new entrepreneurs (under a blanket NDA).
If there are ideas to take forward, assemble experienced management teams around the entrepreneur, who then become either the Board, or at least non-exec directors.
If we did this with every tech university, we’d be swamped with new exciting businesses based on innovation.
David Coleman wrote:
Gene,
Thank you for your comments. You have pointed out exactly what I have found to be the “problem” with innovation – defining what innovation is!!! And yes, once the culture is such where innovation is understood and rewarded, then value is recognized.
Regards,
David
Aslam Handy wrote:
Innovation needs to happen in a global multi-enterprise ecosystem for a fraction of what it costs today. Compliance is critical for this to happen. My patents (available on my website) on Enterprise Architecture for green IT, healthcare IT and medical tourism which are based on personal experience address this.
Air/water quality will be the biggest issues facing our planets’ sustainability when the population reaches 10B+ and the next generation will not be able to sustain the high healthcare costs. Productivity will suffer unless we work collectively to solve these problems using Internet standards that United Nations has adopted for electronic medical records of homes, people, cars, animals etc.
Rgds,
Aslam Handy
Gene Drumm wrote:
One of the first steps is for the enterprise leaders to be clear that innovation is not invention. It’s improving on what’s in place, rather than creating what hasn’t been there. It is not stand alone R&D. Once the distinction is clear, then it becomes easier to identify where innovation is already taking place – regardless of scope or scale, and starting to promote and highlight it.
This works to build a self-fulfilling prophecy in the culture that this is something people are good at. It must, of course be accompanied by recognition, resource allocation, internal communications, and innovation events like science fairs and road shows.
Kirk Rheinlander wrote:
Earl – my engagements have always been one level down from you – the President and reports.
I have found innovation to be within almost everyone, provided the culture supports and not suppresses it. There are a number of characteristics that I have observed that are indicative of how much the cultural environment of an organization supports innovation. The following is a set of continuums that depict these key characteristics.
Less < <---------------------------- Innovation ----------------------------->> More
======================================================
Risk Averse / Punish Failure < <-- Risk Perspective -->> Reward Success AND Attempts
“Shoot-the-Messenger” < <----- Openness --->> Speak your mind encouraged
Exposed Problem a CLM* < <-- Problem Visibility---->> Opportunity to Improve
Always Done it That Way < <-- Change Orientation -->> Encourage/Demand Change
One Industry < <-----Talent Diversity ----->> Multiple Industry Experience
Stagnant /Slow < <-------------- Decision Making ------------>> Responsive/Quick
Buried in Committee/Firefighting/Laying Blame < <-- Problem Solving Approach -->> Openly Attack Root Causes
No Participation < <-------------- Interaction ------------>> Heated Debate
This last one is common, but not a key characteristic
Low Tech < <-------------- Technology Orientation ------------>> High Tech
*CLM – Career Limiting Move
Most of innovation comes from encouraging people to speak their mind without fear of repercussion; to embrace ideas from anyone and everyone; to NOT punish people willing to attempt to do things better, faster, more creatively; to not be of one mind, but the best of all minds. It needs to be about the ideas, not the people; eliminate the personification of ideas – if an idea is all wet, you should be able to state that and why, without any negative stigma towards the person that fronted the idea initially.
And avoid, at all costs, consensus management – the plague of engineering to the lowest common denominator. Take the best characteristics of all the ideas on the table, and exploit the synergies, not lop off the highlights.
I’ve had the unique blessing to be in the right place at the right time to be involved in numerous well-known and world-changing innovations. Yet I never knew what the success factors were until I became involved in an organization that stifled the innovation culture. The above is what I gleaned from this experience, and have tested it against dozens of environments since, with consistent results.
To quote Mark Montgomery from a CIO linkedIn forum – you hit the nail right on the head with “most of the effort in improving innovation must be invested in removing the barriers”.
Peter Spence wrote:
Earl, your article does well in setting out the challenge for organisations to develop the necessary culture and structure for innovation if they are to succeed, much less survive in the future.
If we are to develop a culture of innovation within and across organisations, we must firstly look toward developing collaboration as a core organisational competency. Without it, we either end up with the ‘herding cats’ scenario where the energy of creative types cannot be harnessed due to a lack of collective purpose and leadership, or the ‘freeze on innovation and creation’ that occurs when organisations are over managed and held hostage by the analytic types. Collaborative competencies that focus upon trust, connections, diversity, leadership, relationships, communication, self development etc, form the basis for innovation and creativity.
Why do we see organisations embrace collaborative /network forms (understanding and talking about new ways of organising) yet then self sabotage by retaining old ways of doing (managing). Is it attributed to a fear of losing control of the autonomous/diverse actors (i.e. cat herding) due to a lack of confidence or competence in their collaborative leadership skills?
Too much collaboration or collaboration for collaboration sake only promotes the ‘cat herding’ scenario – Conscious collaboration on the other hand, guides organisational actors toward a collective purpose – i.e. effective leadership, selection and engagement of partners with sufficient diversity in resources, knowledge and skills to solve the problem or capitalise upon the opportunity as it emerges. In essence the collaborative competencies cultivate a culture of innovation while at the same time facilitating a negotiated order that provides the necessary organising structure to harness the collective energy of the diverse actors involved to achieve a common purpose . In doing so , the drifting away of actors in pursuit of self interests and goals is avoided (read straying cats).
So how do we develop the relationship between the analytical and creative types/groups to achieve a healthy balance? I would suggest the organisation wide development of collaborative and negotiation competencies will be essential to meet the challenge Earl has described. It is reasonable to expect that future organisations who fail to develop core collaborative and negotiation competencies will be impaired by rising conflict, inertia and stagnation.
Peter
Ted, Thanks for the comment. Cultivating innovation is hard work and requires a delicate balancing act. But I have seen it work incredibly well. Dr. Smith
Shan Saeed wrote:
Innovation comes by investing in human capital i.e. Education…Solid education, technically sound human beings are more useful and asset for an organization. Policies and systems should be formulated that provided incentives to invest in physical and human capital that encourages innovation and the movement of resources…That is all key ingredients to growth of the country. Effective and efficient human resources are model for innovation. Education and only education is the only driver for innovation and growth of an organization and the country.
Steve, Thanks for your comment. I have worked with both kinds of companies – the ones that give time off to think and the ones who run their people so hard they have no time to think. I always bet on the former. Dr. Smith
stevenmwirth.comSteve Wirth wrote:
Innovation is all about prioritization and investment. Google has a policy of “Innovative Time Off”. You can find many opinions on the effectiveness of this policy in generating revenue but unquestionably it puts a priority on innovation including drawing innovative people to the company. Google’s formula is 80% tactical and 20% innovation. Many companies especially now set their priorities as 110%+ tactical and view innovation as a luxury to be deferred for the good times. The extra 10% expected of employees leaves them too tired and stressed to spend time or energy on innovation. If at the top the company genuinely makes innovation a funded priority and rewards employee innovation the organization will adapt. This transition will take time because the employees will be skeptical that the push for innovation is a short lived response to an outside influence and not part of a long term strategy.
Steve Wirth
http://www.stevenmwirth.com
Donald, Yes you are going a bit to fast. I have worked with three international organizations focusing on innovation. In each, the US contingent had challenges that representatives from other countries did not. The basic problem was that the Americans saw the process of international innovation from a tribal viewpoint – ‘what is in it for our team’. The rest of the world was coming from an essentially pluralist viewpoint – collaboration and sharing of the results. The hubris that came with the assumption of a ‘front of the line’ status damaged the American status in the teams. It is not what is going on within the US that is important – it is how what is going on within the US translates internationally. The last administration made that effect much worse – the cowboy mentality was viewed as insulting by the rest of the world. The new administration has gone a long way to reverse that damage but we have a long way to go. Dr. Smith
Donald Missey, PMP wrote:
By studying, and learning from, failure.
Most technological innovations have been born from daring risks in non-conventional processes, followed by astute observation and analysis. It doesn’t work if you try one without the other.
If you are US-based, you quickly realize that geographic over-concentration of financial and institutional resources is resulting not in innovation, but in gaming the systems in finance and influence. Is this innovation – or predictable
systemic sclerosis?
There needs to be a bifurcated approach to failure – an intolerence for what does not work (system failure), and an understanding that innovation will necessarily result in failures (ready fire aim).
(Am I going too fast here?)
Daniel Westerheim wrote:
Dr. Smith,
I work for one of the leading SBIR companies in the nation and have spent a fair amount of time studying the innovation process and culture both within an “innovation company” (where the product is targeted toward innovative technologies in general) and larger, more typical companies where innovation is a means to an end. Both cases have a require different structures and motivational methods to build the appropriate mix of creative and analytical types.
This is an intriguing topic that I would be interested in speaking with you about in more detail if you are interested. I enjoy comparing my observations with others and have found some very useful and unique viewpoints on structuring and managing innovation cultures.
-Dan
Great comment and story Nicole. Best of luck with your company. Dr. Smith
nicole wei wrote:
True. Talking on innovation is not innovative. The innovative environment is essential element for any organization. It can tell the biggest advantage of this organization also the unique selling point for the products.
Here I share my experience of innovation in my previous company. I worked in publishing company which publish English books for children in preschool. However, lack of qualified English teachers was the main issue for these students. Therefore, we came up the ” i-Pen” which can speak out the text book when student point it. This series of books is really popular among the students. They also created some ideas of using this pen. For instance, they can learn English by small group and one of students can be a teacher by using this pen. It not only improve the self-learning but also enhance students’ confidence. Moreover, this device can clearly distinguish the different between us and other publishing companies.
Hopefully it is useful!! Cheers
Thanks for some great comments. It is clear that innovation is a major organizational challenge. It is also clear that many senior teams give lip service to the concept with little intention of actually cultivating innovation. How would you asses an organization’s tendency to innovate if you were encountering it for the first time? Dr. Smith
Jerome Beaudoin wrote:
Dr. Smith,
There is no question that innovation is much easier to state then to execute. I have been in enough companies to understand the dynamics of the cultures and philosophies that make innovation come to reality. There is a link between innovation and risk. One company that I was with talked lots about innovation and how proud and accpeting they were of innovation but they never capitalized because of the risks that come with innovation. In order to cultivate innovation, it starts at the top and penetrates downward. If the executive are conservative and avoid risks then you know that innovation will be very difficult. Your statement about “saying is not doing” is something that needs to be understood.
Ken Balog wrote:
Dr. Smith,
As you point out talking about innovation is easy and creating a sustainable culture of innovation are harder to to do than many people realize. In my experience, there must be a defined process for brainstorming and harvesting ideas no matter where they come from. That process must define the necessary steps ideas that make it through have to go through in order to make it to a full blown product/service launch. In an upcoming blog of mine, I will be discussing this and providing some examples of how such processes have helped bring innovative solutions to market.
Ken Balog
ken@richnichegroup.com
http://richnichegroup.net/news
Dave Phillipson wrote:
Doc,
We cultivate innovation 5x year at CEO Space.
It’s an idea think tank with investors to back up the concept.
Let me know if you’d like to further your research. I can place you in the middle of it as a member, should we deem that you would be a good fit for our membership.
Dave Phillipson
Tracy E. L. Poured wrote:
Thanks for posting.
By facilitating spaces for analytics and creatives to work toward their strength as well as spaces for creatives and analytics to come together and work toward what they perceive is their weakness. The more well facilitated times of bringing the two together, the more sustainable cultures of innovation can take root and flourish. The essence of cooperation and collaboration.
Here’s to finding and forwarding higher numbers of hybrid leaders as well.
The above are primary areas of focus for me.
William Jeansonne, M.B.A wrote:
Necessity is the mother of invention–and innovation.
Saady Abd-Elfattah wrote:
Innovation is usually brought into light when challenges are presented without clear solutions. For some of us this is a challenge that stimulates the thought process by making one think “out of the box.” But innovation is not always rendered from challenges, rather from an improved way to execute the same idea or process.
Ben, Thanks for the comment. I agree that the tendency to not hear is one of the main reasons that innovation is stifled. I do think that new hires can bring fresh air into an organization. They can be primary drivers of a restructuring and refocusing of a company. I have seen this in companies that were going through major expansion of the workforce. Innovation in the area of a company’s products or services is another matter. Sometimes it takes bringing outsiders into the discussion – if for no other reason than to start a conversation in a totally new direction. It can take a spark plug to ignite even the richest mixture. Dr. Smith
Robin Cook wrote:
It’s too long an article to post here, Earl, but I have it in the files uploaded to my profile & I’m happy to email it to anyone.