I was thinking about my talk from yesterday, and one bit that I just spontaneously threw in is probably worth expanding on. I spent a lot of this week marking assignments from my MBA students (who were an exceptionally good bunch this year). For the major assignment this year, I had them analyse their own firm or organisation using the Innovation Value Chain model developed by Morten Hansen and Julian Birkinshaw.
There are two key points with this model. The first is that there are three stages in the process of innovation: idea generation, selecting & developing ideas, and diffusing ideas. The key part, however, is that all three parts of that process have to be working well in order to innovate.
Both John and I have talked about the dangers of over-focusing on idea generation at the expense of execution, so we find this to be an extremely useful model. In particular, we have frequently observed organisations decide that they have to improve their innovation, and then sinking all of their resources and effort into idea generation.
This approach is flawed, and my MBA students demonstrated why. They came from a wide range of organisations – huge multinationals, small start-ups, government departments, and educational institutions. Despite these different backgrounds, their findings were remarkably consistent – only 3 of the 60 organisations that they work in are ideas-poor. The other 57 (that’s 95%!) have problems with either selecting or diffusing ideas.
So when firms focus on improving their idea generation, it is a mistake for two reasons. The first is that this is almost certainly not where their problem lies. They’re probably worse at execution. The second is that it does not take into account the entire innovation system. I just saw this quote from Russell Ackoff (via Venessa Miemis):
Improving the performance of the parts of a system taken separately will necessarily improve the performance of the whole.
False. In fact, it can destroy an organization, as is apparent in an example I have used ad nauseum: Installing a Rolls Royce engine in a Hyundai can make it inoperable. This explains why benchmarking has almost always failed. Denial of this principle of performance improvement led me to a series of organizational designs intended to facilitatethe management of interactions: the circular organization, the internal market economy, and the multidimensional organization.
Innovation within an organisation is a system. It is much more than simply idea generation. And if you focus only on improving your ideation, there’s a pretty good chance that your overall innovation performance will actually get worse. The hardest part of innovation is idea execution, and we simply must get better at it.
Ralph-Christian
“the internal market economy” I am a big fan of this way of thinking!
Ackoff was great!
Keep that data for a later talk. Idea generation is never the problem!
Believe me John – I’m going to make plenty of use of that data!
[…] on generating more ideas, but we know that idea generation usually isn’t the problem – idea execution is. Coming to grips with this is one of the key steps to take in becoming more innovative. Another key […]
[…] talked about this before – There are two key points with this model. The first is that there are three stages in the […]
[…] Jams to Select Ideas I have talked a couple of times recently about some results from the assignments in my MBA class this year. In assessing the […]
[…] process is so critical. We need to be able to translate ideas into action. That is why tools like the Innovation Value Chain are so effective. It’s not that the model is perfect, or the only tool to use. But it works […]
[…] parts – generation of variety, selection, and replication. This maps on to the three steps in the innovation value chain. The Innovation Value Chain also has three steps – idea generation, idea selection and […]
[…] across the 3 horizons and being able to evaluate an organization’s innovation process as a value chain are both examples of how boards can engage with management of innovation strategy and not interfere […]
[…] being a singular event. We’ve written about the significance of looking at innovation as a value chain and the Ohly et al paper is entirely consistent with this. Different parts of the innovation […]
[…] than being a singular event. We’ve written about the significance of looking at innovation as a value chain and the Ohly et al paper is entirely consistent with this. Different parts of the innovation […]
[…] Kelley here on Blogging Innovation. I’ve tried to tell you about it too, using both analogies and statistics. The secret idea of innovation is […]
[…] Kelley here on Blogging Innovation. I’ve tried to tell you about it too, using both analogies and statistics. The secret idea of innovation is […]
[…] Kelley here on Blogging Innovation. I’ve tried to tell you about it too, using both analogies and statistics. The secret idea of innovation is […]
[…] than being a singular event. We’ve written about the significance of looking at innovation as a value chain and the Ohly et al paper is entirely consistent with this. Different parts of the innovation […]
[…] you start measuring, it turns out that organisations rarely suffer from not having enough good ideas. I’ve had my MBA and Executive Education students assess their own organisations for a few […]
[…] organisations have plenty of ideas – their innovation failures happen in other stages of the process. There are tools available to […]