email extractor

Archive for September, 2010

Our Job is to Invent the Future

If we are trying to innovate, what is our actual job?

According to Mark Earls in Welcome to the Creative Age, our job is to invent the future.

Seems reasonable to me. Here is how he builds that argument:

…opinions are what you get back from customers once you’ve done something, so they are largely irrelevant to you. They aren’t the precondition for customers doing something or a good guide to what you should do. At all.

So don’t waste your time with ask/answer research and opinions. Throw away the reassurance of quoting the consumer or stats garnered from opinion polls. Watch your customers, observe them, live with them, but don’t expect them to tell you much themselves. Because they can’t.

Instead, recognize:

  • It is your job to invent the future – you are the inventors.
  • It is not the customer’s job – they are not good at the future but they might buy your invention if you get it right (or not).

LeChatNoir and His Contraption (version Two Full Stop Ought)

I’m in the process of working through some focus group results for a consulting client. Against my advice, they insisted on doing this work to try to figure out the best use for a new piece of technology. So this section from Earls rings particularly true for me at the moment.

I keep trying to tell them that it is up to them to invent the future – customers may well play a co-creative role in the process, but first my client has to come up with an idea, a proposal to put in front of their customers. It’s their job.

Since they’re not listening to me, I hope that you will.

If we’re trying to innovate, it’s our job to invent the future. As simple as that. And as frustrating, vexingly hard as that too. In any case, it’s our job. Time to get started.

(photo from flickr/redteam under a Creative Commons License (discovered after searching for “contraption”!))

21 Comments

Pulling in Ideas to Improve Innovation

One of the key ideas in The Power of Pull by John Hagel, John Seeley Brown and Lang Davison is that changes in the business environment are leading to a situation where rather than creating great ideas and then pushing them out to the world, we need to take advantage of knowledge flows by pulling in ideas and resources. Hagel does a good job of outlining six of the factors leading to environmental change in his Tedx talk – it is well worth your time to watch it:

One of the key implications of this is that if we are going to execute a pull strategy, we need to have some gravity – we need to be able to draw people, resources and ideas towards us. How can we do this? Here are some ideas:

  • Create our own novel ideas: One of the ironies in this approach is that if we are going to pull resources to us, we need to give away some value. We need to create novel and innovative ideas that will help others improve their situation. In part, we need to have what Hugh MacLeod calls smarter conversations:

    Ask not what tools you want to use, ask how you want to change how you talk to people. All evolutions in marketing are evolutions in language. Those who can raise the level of conversation in any market, win.

  • Make it easy for people to find your smarter conversations: In the book they talk about increasing your ‘findability’. This part is tricky – if you’re not careful, you can fall back into using push strategies to promote your ideas. Social media is one way to increase findability. But so are the old-fashioned methods of building networks. This is where some of Seth Godin’s ideas are useful – find the people that care about what you’re talking about, and if your ideas are good, and you’re lucky, they’ll tell other people about them.

    Sunrise Portland Head Lighthouse, Maine, USA

  • Give up power: one final step is give up power – you have to get power out to the other members of your network. Here is how a review of the book in The Economist concludes:

    What does all this mean for firms? They will have to shift from a command-and-control approach to one in which the company becomes a platform for employees to make the best possible use their pulling power. That will mean pushing more resources from the corporate centre to those employees who are most exposed to change. Employees should also be encouraged to spend more time nurturing their networks both online and off, and tweeting to their heart’s content. Firms that ban their employees from using Facebook or Twitter may suffer the same fate as the big wooden effigy at the Burning Man festival, which, as you may have guessed, goes up in flames.

    In the book, they talk about the importance of empowering everyone in order to increase passion:

    As we begin to realize that scalable efficiency cannot see us through a shift to near-constant disruption, we will begin to see that performance improvement by everyone counts, not just performance improvement for “knowledge workers.”

    We will begin to redefine all jobs, especially those performed at the “bottom of the institutional pyramid,” in ways that facilitate problem solving, experimentation, and tinkering. This will foster more widespread performance improvement. Everyone, even the most unskilled worker, will be viewed as a critical problem-solver and knowledge-worker contributing to performance improvement. One need only walk through the assembly lines of a Toyota plant to see highly motivated workers who are passionate about their jobs because they can tangibly see how they are making a difference by tackling challenging work problems and contributing to greater value.

I was discussing ideas similar to these with a consulting client this morning. At the moment, they have an innovation process that is highly concentrated within the upper tier of management. They see a need to start including other managers in innovation, but they still can’t see how to get the low-skilled workers involved.

We talked about how if they can figure out to do this, it will lead to significant differentiation between them and the rest of their industry (one of their competitors was telling me last week about how one of their plants had more than 100% turnover in 2009 – which is mind-boggling in several ways!)

I don’t know if they can do it. I hope so – and I’m going to do my best to help them. One encouraging point is that they see a need to move towards a more knowledge-based business model in order to continue to do well over the longer term.

One key component in such a strategy is figuring out how to pull ideas, people and resources into the organization.

(Lighthouse photo from flickr/freefotouk under a Creative Commons License)

6 Comments

Write Your Own Map

Here’s a strange thing that I’ve noticed: even when we’re talking about innovation, people like to be told what to do. Doesn’t this strike you as odd? The people that are the most interested in doing something new seem to like being told what to do, just like everyone else.

I just revisited a great post by David Chouinard about the importance of reading, which reminded me of this contradiction. Here is a key quote from the post:

What if your doctor told you she hasn’t read a scholarly article since med school? Or your lawyer told you he doesn’t bother reading new case studies?
Then why is it acceptable not to read in your field?
Turns out books are by far your #1 entertainment and learning value. Before even trying to be the best (plumber, businessperson, marketer, therapist) in the world, you need to read an awful lot.
But don’t read anything. Most books/blogs are about the top ten tips on X, about following the checklist and learning the manual. Except for a few that get you to write your own map.

The last quote is the kicker. To innovate, we need to write our own map. Which is why it seems weird to me that so many of the popular posts on Blogging Innovation, one of the most popular innovation blogs around, are list posts. I’m not criticising either the site, which is a great resource, nor the posts on the list – which are generally useful. The thing I don’t like is our tendency to be drawn to lists.

On one level, I understand why list posts are popular. I’ve even written a few myself. But overall, I’m with Chouinard – we need to be writing our own maps.

Which is one of the reasons that I really like Different by Youngme Moon. One of the basic premises in this book is that organisations get caught up in feature wars – which they can’t win, when they should be trying to do something genuinely different.

The thing that I love about Different is that it is not a recipe book. There are no easy steps to follow to make your offerings different. You have to write your own map.

One of the ways to do this is to read, and to read widely. Read across disciplines. Find the novel ideas by connecting things at the intersection of disciplines (an idea also discussed in The Medici Effect by Frans Johansson).

There’s no map to follow to become innovative. You have to make your own map.

Here’s 10 easy steps you can follow to do that…..

9 Comments

Is Innovation Good or Bad? Yes!

An article by Pat Lencioni in Business Week called Why Companies Need Less Innovation has generated a bit of controversy, at least in the part of the internet that I live in. His basic premise is that it is a mistake to try to make an entire company innovative – instead, it is better to just let a few people in upper management innovate, while everyone else focuses on just doing their job. Here is his argument in a nutshell:

What should leaders do? Be more open to new ideas from employees? Probably not. Better yet, they should stop overhyping innovation to the masses and come to the realization that only a limited number of people in any company really needs to be innovative.

As heretical as that may seem to those who want to believe that “innovation is everyone’s business,” consider that even the most innovative and creative organizations need far more people to be dutiful, enthusiastic, and consistent in their work than innovative or creative.

Think about a movie set. For every writer or director or actor on the payroll, there are hordes of people who have to be technically proficient, consistent, patient, and disciplined in their responsibilities. If they innovate, the project turns to chaos.

I think this argument is wrong. Just watch the incredibly extensive ‘making of’ features on the Lord of the Rings dvds to see how wrong his movie-making example is. However, Lencioni’s main argument has already been effectively answered by Steve Denning (New defense of traditional management: firms need less innovation!), Ralph Ohr (Do Companies Need Less Innovation?), James Todhunter (Why Companies Need Pervasive Innovation) and Steve Denning again (More or Less Innovation? Duh!). All these are well worth reading, and I think that the title of the second Denning piece pretty well sums up my thoughts on the debate.

But there’s one point that I’d like to add – even though I spend all of my work time researching and talking about innovation, and trying to help organisations become more innovative, I don’t think that innovation is always good. Innovation is value-neutral.

What do I mean by that?

A parallel debate is going on over the impact of the internet. Some see it as an engine of pervasive positive change, while others argue that its impact is overwhelmingly negative. The arguments between technology optimists and pessimists are nicely summarised by L. Gordon Crovitz in his article Is Technology Good or Bad? Yes. The point that he makes is that technology is value-neutral – it is only our uses of it that are good or bad:

Among the schisms between these groups: that the Web promotes personalization that can become fragmentation; creates information abundance that can become information overload; allows for the creativity of amateurs while undermining the business models of professionals; and enables the wisdom of crowds that can result in the stupidity of the lowest common denominator.

This is an important point. Technology has both positive and negative impacts – and so does innovation. Innovation leads to all of the medical advances that have extended our life expectancies from 60 years in the late 19th century to 80 years now. Innovation has also led to the creation of the novel management structures that make it easier for terrorist organizations to operate.

I’m an innovation optimist. The research data overwhelmingly demonstrates that organisations that are more innovative are more profitable, and better places to work. Most of the time, the organisations that are more innovative do in fact have systems in place that help everyone innovate, not just a handful of people at the top.

However, if we are managing an innovative organisation, the question that we must consider is what goals do our innovations support? In order for innovation to be good, we need to be doing things that are worth doing.

By definition, innovations change the world. It’s up to us to make sure that our innovations change the world for the better.

2 Comments

Using Networks to Find Knowledge

Last week Ralph Ohr left me with a challenge to think about how to use experts to get the best outcomes on making decisions under conditions of uncertainty. We constantly miss disruptive changes in the operating environment and I suppose if I really knew the answer, I wouldn’t be posting it on a blog.

Sometimes predictions are genuinely impossible because of true uncertainty. The future is the future and nothing in the past can help us predict some events. Rather than making predicitons, operational flexibility is probably the best response to this type of uncertaintly.

On the other hand, sometimes the emerging disruptions are right under our noses and the problem is getting over myopia. Experts can suffer from myopia as well as the rest of us so perhaps the issue is finding the right expert with the right interpretation of what is happening.

This means that an organization’s networks can be crucial in determining the successful search for the right person with the required knowledge. Tim and I have been doing some work for a large organization that is trialling new ways of doing business. It seems that one of the issues that is faced by this organization is building the expertise networks acrosss the business to find the right person to give their opinion and expertise at critical decision making points. However, in large organizations, this is difficult. A colleague from a large multinational mining company sums up the issue in the following diagram.

As you can see, effectively using the knowledge of the business means trying to get better connections to reduce the size of the “I don’t know who to ask” space.

So how can we do this? One possibility is that we direct our questions to people in the organization that we know are very highly connected. However, one simulaiton study of search in a real organizational network has found that this might result in more steps needed to find the right person. In this simulation, a slightly more efficient search could be conducted by going to the manager who is responsible for the subject area that is being investigated or by starting the search in the right department.

The simulation study needs more investigation and we have a PhD student looking at the problems of search in large organizations. However, if formal lines of enquiry can be shown to be associated with efficient search networks then this suggests that organizations may be able to connect pockets of knowledge by identifiying subject matter experts and linking them to critical projects.

8 Comments

Thank you for using IGIT Tweet Button, a plugin by PHP Freelancer
WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera
Forex Robot
Forex Signals

Switch to our mobile site