Innovation at Scale: A foundation for growth means minding the store while shooting the moon

It’s not that we are confused about the necessity for innovation. Most organizations, their leaders and members alike, recognize the need to innovate in order to stay relevant to their customers and to continue growing. Confusion arises when organizations don’t recognize that the systems and processes that serve their current needs are not particularly suitable for creating, introducing, and supporting the new innovations coming to life. Like an ill-fitting suit, an unchanged organization attempting to dress itself in innovation will just look…wrong, and will probably feel uncomfortable, too.

Try and fail, but don’t fail to try.

-       Stephen Kaggwa

It’s necessary to keep the doors open and the lights on. To foster an innovation-capable culture does not mean that you have to abandon all the stable processes and actions that enable you to produce products and services as profitably as possible. What is required is the adoption of a mindset that is additive, risk-aware, resilient, and which enables the exploration of the new while tending to the old.

Keeping an eye on the things that fund innovation

The basic drivers that support an enterprise are its ability to produce a set of products or services for which a customer, or group of customers, is willing to pay enough to cover their production while providing some margin for profitability. Those seeking to increase their rate of innovation within their organization must pay attention to the things that are at the heart of why the organization exists.

In the early 1970s, the newly elected president and CEO of Kimberly-Clark, Darwin E. Smith, saw that the company couldn’t survive in the long-term as a paper manufacturer. Procter & Gamble, the large consumer products company, was beginning to challenge Kimberly-Clark in the marketplace, and if there was no direct response, they would likely be overwhelmed. Smith decided that to compete properly in consumer product markets, Kimberly-Clark had to prune its coated-paper business. Within one year of taking control of the company, Smith initiated changes that included the sale or closure of six paper mills and the sale of more than 300,000 acres of prime land. This was unheard of in the company’s history.

Smith recognized that he had a make-or-break situation on his hands. If he and his leadership team didn’t find a way to compete (and win) against Proctor & Gamble, then Kimberly-Clark would be lost. With more than $250 million in reserve, primarily from the land sale, Smith began the process of transforming the paper manufacturer into a consumer products powerhouse specializing in paper products. An aggressive research campaign was launched by hiring specialists away from competitors. Smith also increased the company’s advertising budget substantially, and plans were made for the construction of additional production facilities.

Marketing was central to Smith’s strategy for growth, as Kimberly-Clark emphasized its commitment to consumer products. He realized that the transformation of the company required not only research and development efforts but also new manufacturing facilities, human resource capabilities, and sales and marketing prowess. Only by selling the old business was Kimberly-Clark able to create the foundation for something new.

Similar stories of transformation could be told about Nokia, the mobile technology giant which still sells more handsets than any other manufacturer in the world. It began its life as a paper mill, rubber mill, and a cable works. There’s also that other innovation powerhouse, 3M, which began life as a mining and metals company. Each company had to fund a transition to something new, without which they would not exist today.

How did they make the transition?

Each company had leaders who had a vision of where they needed to go next. They effectively shared and spread that vision so that others would believe in it and commit to it. Each company also took steps to tend to their baseline business so that they could effectively fund the transition to the new business models and product lines that would ensure their future prosperity. And they invested those funds and energies as wisely as possible.

Focusing on the future

The key traits of the organization that can transform itself, creating innovation from its core businesses, are deceptively simple. They understand the need to keep customers pleased, engaged, and actively purchasing existing services. Without that effort, the resources required to fund a transition to a new set of products or services, or a whole new business model, would rapidly dwindle or even become absent. The effective stewardship of available resources also means that organization leaders understand how to foster and promote the risk-accepting practices and resilience across the people in the enterprise, so they can deliver the needed present business results and strive for the business results demanded by change.

The people unable to commit to transformational change are like barbed wire (protectionist or defensive specialists) or drag chutes (slowing down the rate of progress until it collapses in on itself) in an organization. Those companies that do manage wholesale shifts, essentially placing innovation at their core, are composed of people who are steadfast and true, the mainstays and anchors that provide stability and endurance in the face of challenging conditions. Their focus on the possibility of a brighter future is a beacon to all.

Courage doesn’t always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, “I will try again tomorrow.”

-       Mary Anne Radmacher

Read More

Intangible Innovation – lessons to be learned from concrete design in a service-hungry world

What are you doing to capture feedback on your innovations that have no tangible manifestation?
How do you determine the value and impact of those experiences that are designed (or not) for your customers when they purchase your services? How do you know that they have had an optimal experience? Satisfaction surveys only go so far. There are other ways to capture the level of service design and experience innovation success.

As far as I can see there is little inherent in the design process that protects design thinkers from these same failures if we choose to tackle abstract, intangible questions such as services, systems and networks. Instead we might imagine how to apply the same rigor and discipline to the design process that has emerged from hundreds of years of practice in the tangible world.

We might concentrate on how to make the process of the design of the intangible as transparent and open to observation as the design of the tangible. We might develop prototyping environments that allow us to learn through failure without catastrophic implications. We might accept that we need better mechanisms for criticism and feedback so that we begin to establish a body of knowledge about what works, and what does not, in the design of these things that don’t go ‘thud’ when we drop them.

-       Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO (http://designthinking.ideo.com/)

 

In a post on a similar theme recently, Seth Godin  extolled the virtues of having the designers of services “sign” their work. The rigor and discipline being applied to product development and its attendant innovation should be applied everywhere.

Too often, we blame bad service on the people who actually deliver the service. Sometimes (often) it’s not their fault. Sadly, the complaints rarely make it as far as the overpaid (or possibly overworked) executive who made the bad design decision in the first place. It’s the architecture of service that makes the phone ring and that makes customers leave.

A catchphrase employed by a client also comes to mind. He is fond of saying, “You touch it, you own it.” In that sense all innovation should be owned. In that light if the original need is not being appropriately addressed, or the problem being adequately resolved, the recipient of the service (or new business process, etc.) can go to the design source to provide feedback and insight into what was missed. The journey to a richly rewarding innovated experience is paved with the feedback of customers and users. Neglect them at your peril.

The keys to learning lessons from physical product design are to make the intangible concrete; designers and innovators should:

  • Own the design. All designers must take responsibility for their work. The decisions made should be documented and reference-able, regardless of the point of origin. No hiding.
  • Experience the design. All designers should experience their own design. They should prototype it, move through it and live with it. And they should be the first to experience it, “live.”
  • Create a feedback loop in and around the design. Make it perpetual and make responses to that feedback a part of the ongoing evaluation process, too.

No innovator is omniscient. If experience design is not tied to results accountability for performance is an afterthought but less fleeting than the negativity associated with a bad experience.

Read More

An idea stuck in your enterprise isn’t innovation—it’s useless

A good idea stuck in your enterprise is just a clever notion adding little value. As Shakespeare might have put it, it is “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” No matter how inventive it may seem, if it’s not directly addressing a specific need, and generating remarkable value, it is useless. The world doesn’t need more uselessness.

What good ideas need is social mobility. They need to be transferable, presentable, and accessible. Good ideas need to be backed up with subject-matter expertise. They need to directly address the questions that surround the ecosystem of an idea as it becomes an innovation. Good ideas need to be able to be clear about their gaps and deficiencies so that those people who might provide assistance can readily identify where and how they can provide effective support. Good ideas also need to be clear and cogent, so they can be better positioned by advocates across the organization; positioning the idea to those with the power and the networks to extend the impact of the innovation as it meets users’ needs.

Good ideas live and thrive when the people supporting them know how to navigate organizations: these people are flexible and resilient enough to build a collaborative coalition of partners, regardless of their own egos, who will help carry the idea forward as it grows into a true innovation and finds a useful place in the world. Most enterprises don’t know if they have these people because most don’t know that they need them. In the meantime, the output of the best and brightest might be shelved or trapped in a presentation on someone’s hard drive, never to see the light of day or have a chance of testing themselves in the only arena that matters, the marketplace.

Where have all the smarty-pants gone?
Sometimes it takes an expert to point out the obvious.
- Scott Allen
Long the domain of subject-matter experts, invention has offered so much squandered promise. While invention is the end result of a spark of creativity, it’s innovation that takes that invention and brings it to the world in a way that generates value. Having the idea is a big deal, sure, but like parenting, it is not over and done with the moment a child is born. What follows are years of hard work. The inventor, long lauded as a mythic figure, is only valuable when they can get their idea into the hands of someone who can use it. Unless there is a way for an invention to be successfully tested and used to address a compelling need, its intrinsic value is negligible.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the folklore surrounding invention is that of the ivory tower syndrome— the notion that for greatest effect, an individual or a group of experts from a specific field of study should be closeted away to work in glorious isolation, only to be released upon the delivery of an earth-shaking innovation, is ludicrous. Why on earth we would think that an absence of collaboration would produce an optimal result is beyond me. Perhaps it is because some consider that collaboration denotes invention by committee? And we all know what they say about committees, especially when it comes to the value of their output. Consider the character Sir Humphrey Appleby, from the British TV show “Yes, Minister,” when asked what can be done about a particular situation.

…to that end, I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference so that at the end of the day we’ll be in the position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long-term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill-conceived action which might well have unforeseen repercussions.

In short, committees are where ideas (good or bad) go to die.

An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less, until eventually he knows everything about nothing.
- Edwin Meese III

The challenge for subject-matter experts is how they can best “wire” themselves into the organization in which they exist. For a technology expert, connecting them to financing and accounting experts may help them see how they might afford prototyping at an earlier development stage, so that they might avoid late stage problems. A service-development expert might benefit from a connection to a marketing expert in order to understand how a client segment or market demographic is evolving over time, thereby increasing the chances of delivering on-target service innovation. The bottom line is that a subject-matter expert needs to supplement the depth of their experience through both access to other adjacent subject-matter expertise, and the generalists required to identify, and advocate for, those people who can best support of the designed solution.

Knowing where to turn is the next major hurdle in getting an idea through a company and out the door.

My kingdom for a broker!
A good friend is a connection to life—a tie to the past, a road to the future, the key to sanity in a totally insane world.
- Lois Wyse

Knowing where to turn for support and guidance is often an issue of great frustration for those who conceive of potential innovations. Often organizational life, with its politics and brinkmanship, offers little comfort for someone who knows they have a great idea in their hands but no clear path to get that idea through the organization and out the door for the best test of its value: customers. Instead, ideas lie abandoned after what may have been grueling and punishing campaigns for their novelty to be seen and heard. The person with the idea is left shell-shocked at the very least, and angry and hurt at best.

Why is it that good ideas die in organizations?

Quite often the good idea is never connected by its originator to the person or people with the resources to breathe life into it, or to those who might be able to assist in its genesis. The reasons are many, but a primary one is that inventors are often marginalized. Their behavior and passion for their subjects sometimes makes them seem out of touch with the rest of the organizational life and purpose around them. This results in isolation and their ideas being discounted.

To survive, ideas must be connected to the whole network of available resources across the enterprise. Rather than seeking to navigate the functional silos that exist in most organizations, valid structures designed to improve reliability and reduce waste in the systematic production of similar products and services, inventors seeking to turn their creations into innovations need different access. They can be better helped by being wired into the social network of the organization. The social network is the structure that supports the way cross-organization value is truly created. What they need are people to connect them to that social structure. Those people are brokers.

Communication–the human connection–is the key to personal and career success.
- Paul J. Meyer

A broker in organizational life is someone who understands where the best people are to provide assistance and support, and who is willing to connect people across the organization. They often act as agents on behalf of people’s ideas. Some brokers end up in senior roles in organizations because of their willingness to help others. Many of them find their way into what are considered ancillary or supporting functions within organizations. Human resources, customer support, and marketing are some functional areas that are often home to brokers. The key attributes that make someone an effective broker are seen in the breadth of their organizational “connectedness” and their willingness to make new connections in assistance of others’ passions.

For most brokers in organizations, their motivators and drivers come in creating a robust web of relationships around themselves. They seek to validate their own credibility by building effective relationships between and among others across the enterprise. In seeking to link people who may provide assistance to each other or create value with each other, they see the fruits of their efforts creating a stronger organization.

But a smart idea connected to the correct additional resources may only get you so far. Another key trait is missing that would aid in freeing the idea and helping it become a reality. That role is filled by the advocate.

Salesperson? I’d be happy with a sales monkey
The weapon of the advocate is the sword of the soldier, not the dagger of the assassin.
- Alexander Cockburn

Salespeople have a bad rap. When you think of a salesperson, what’s the first image that comes to mind? If it’s a polyester-clad, used-car salesman with a Cheshire Cat grin and an oily comb-over in your mind’s eye, I’m truly sorry. Let’s be perfectly clear: without effective salespeople, organizations die. No sales, no income, no business. Good night. Which doesn’t mean that all salespeople are good and right and useful, either. In fact, the general experience with salespeople out in the world tends to color our perspective on the whole pool. Yet salespeople provide an invaluable service, and not just between our enterprises and our customers. A critical team member in bringing our ideas to market faster is the salesperson, but in an organization, there is often little (save reputation) to accrue or squander. There is no actual transactional sale. Rather than terming them salespeople, let’s consider them advocates.

An advocate is one who believes in something and is willing to speak on its behalf. In the case of ideas stuck inside an organization, one of the few ways to gain support is for an advocate to take the message behind the idea to those people with the funds to support its further development and the power to promote it as an organization-owned initiative. Without an advocate, someone willing to address the perceived deficiencies of an idea in a way that doesn’t cripple its progress, an idea will continue to make little progress towards the marketplace.

The first duty of a wise advocate is to convince his opponents that he understands their arguments, and sympathizes with their just feelings.
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

The power of an advocate lies in their ability to draw others into the fold, to make them a part of a growing group of enthusiastic supporters if not raving fans. A true advocate knows how to present an idea in the best light possible. They understand that just as important as having a clear message to communicate is also knowing how to communicate that message in a manner tailored to fit the audience in front of them. They recognize that timing is critical and that sometimes receptivity also depends on tenacity, repetition, and resilience.

Where the subject matter expert may be the originator of an idea, it goes nowhere without the benefit and support of some “friends”: the broker who connects that idea to the social network in a manner that can unleash its potential, and the advocate capitalizes on that potential so that the idea can face the only tests that matter — the experiences of potential customers.

Read More

SXSW – The social focus in innovation

This week I had the good fortune to be asked to co-moderate a session at the South By Southwest Interactive Festival in Austin, TX. Based on a set of criteria laid out by the festival organizers – apparently as an expat Australian living in the wilds of central New Jersey I ticked some boxes on the diversity chart – I was afforded a front-row seat at the 25th anniversary of a remarkable event.

I won’t tell you all the things that I saw, simply some highlights. What I will say is that for all the pontificating about whether SXSW had jumped the shark, or whether the value was in the room or outside the room, I felt that for an event this size SXSW was one of the better managed conferences I have ever attended. Assistance was readily available should it be required. People were generally courteous. The opportunities to learn were plentiful, and yes, those opportunities were both in the presentation rooms and out on the street in cafés, bars and restaurants, too.

I was not able to devote more than three days to my SXSW experience and given how much I did I don’t know how anyone can pull themselves together for the full ten-day Platinum program. With all the parties involved it would be a shattering experience which would require another ten days vacation for recuperation.

Speakers heard
There is something about conferences with a reputation that makes speakers lift their game. To fail (or is that, FAIL?) at SXSW would certainly be a career limiting move. One of the highlights was seeing June Cohen, the Executive Producer of TED Media, share the journey that the TED conference has taken as it has become a platform for sharing the inspiring and thought-provoking from around the world. Ms. Cohen’s passionate exploration of the challenges of taking TED content “radically open-source” was engaging and intriguing. What TED is and what it is becoming are fast becoming two very different ecosystems. I’m looking forward to watching and learning more over time.

From the sublime to, well if not ridiculous, the profane was the experience of Gary Vaynerchuck live. The large ballroom in the Austin Convention Center was filled with Gary V acolytes and had all the atmosphere of a tent revival meeting. Mr. Vaynerchuck did not disappoint his fans or those new to the experience of him live. He strutted and stormed across the stage and ventured into the audience to spread the love. By turns charming and crass, witty and snide, he kept the audience locked into his always present but not-quite-overt sales pitch for his new book The Thank You Economy. As a New Jersey resident I love his enthusiasm. As a business person I love his story. Certainly the man knows the cardinal rule of the entertainer (no, not working with animals and children) – leave ‘em wanting more.

Rather than providing more speaker recaps, I’ll leave with a brief overview of Bruce Sterling’s closing speech. Now, I as a long time fan of science fiction, I am a huge fan of Bruce Sterling’s writing. I had never seen him live, but knew that his connection to SXSW was long and deep. He did not disappoint either. In a speech that was part angry polemic and part trickster diatribe, Mr. Sterling spared no mercy in skewering Washington, DC politics, Italian politics, politics in general, corporations specifically, and another SXSW speaker J.Craig Venter directly. One of his earliest pearls was that, “all the political language has been rendered toxic.” As a writer, if your use of language is restricted it means you’re a party to organized deception. And Mr. Sterling was not to be silenced. Go here, for a very neat Twitter capture by Jon Lebkowsky. http://www.phibetaiota.net/2011/03/bruce-sterling-at-sxsw-2011-brilliance-on-twitter/)

Another highlight directly connected to the speakers, panelists and presenters was the sponsorship by the advertising giant Ogilvy, of a series of visual note-takers from ImageThink who attended and documented nearly 100 sessions over three days. Their output is phenomenal. See here for a link to the efforts.

Connections made
As mentioned earlier, I was invited to participate with Renee Hopkins, the Senior Editor of Texas Enterprise in the co-moderation and facilitation of an Innochat live core conversation. Core conversations are meant to be topic-focused but wide-ranging full group discussions. Our topic for the day was, “Business Model 101: How do you make money?”

Not knowing what to expect we knew that we needed to bring some technology into the room, which was not provided (on purpose) for core conversations. The intent by the SXSW organizers was to keep people focused on dialogue and not technology. That said, we need to stream a live feed from the #innochat Twitter feed as that was the heart of our initial pitch. We managed to do that and have Gwen Ishmael and Justin Sutton from Decision Analyst, Inc. in the room moderating the live stream and bringing participants into the room by highlighting specific tweets. With over 100 participants in the room and a good many online our discussion was lively and over all too quickly (see: Vaynerchuck – “…leave ‘em wanting more,” above.)

For me, however the main highlights from attending SXSW was making connections with people I know online from Twitter in real life and from past lives. A group of innochat leaders were able to connect in real life over food at Threadgill’s North (I highly recommend the meatloaf with garlic cheese grits.) It was great to take a set of relationships from one technology space offline and have just as wide-ranging and robust discussion. I also had the good fortune to experience dinner with a former co-worker (and friend) and her husband. I was treated to the spectacular views from the deck of The Oasis, which have to been seen to be believed (as does the décor of the currently being refurbished and expanded establishment.) And if you ever get the chance to see The Carper Family play live at the Hole in the Wall I highly recommend it!

All in all, experiencing a place like Austin making accommodations for the masses of conference attendees while retaining its sense of self was wonderful. The mix of music, film and digital media folks made for a vibrant combination and the energizing discussions filled with opportunities to learn, with friends and queuing strangers alike, made it a great experience.

I look forward to returning next year, if not sooner.

Read More

Ignite Princeton 2 – 4 minute recap

For those of you who attended Ignite Princeton 2 at the Nassau Inn in Princeton, New Jersey on Wednesday February 9 – Thanks! It was great to see and great to have your support for a fun local event. Thanks to the people who traveled from near and far to participate and present. Without your involvement it wouldn’t have been half as good. A little video recap to share with you…

Read More

What the US jobs picture says about the need for innovation here—and abroad

Periodically, we revisit the aftereffects of the “Great Unpleasantness” and how they are playing out in the global economy. One of the challenges in drawing conclusions based on macro-economic data is that it hides profound local consequences in the shifting of percentage points. In most first-world nations, the current game is watching the unemployment rate. A tick up a few tenths of a percentage point, and the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth commences. A few ticks down, and a corresponding sigh of relief—if not mild euphoria—in the media is exhibited. Unfortunately, the focus on this sole metric is of little value, as it provides little insight into deeper fundamental challenges at play.

The recent unrest in Egypt resulting in the reluctant relinquishing of power by the former-President-for-Life Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak is in large part due to rising unemployment and economic disenfranchisement among the educated youth. Strangely, the reported Egyptian unemployment rate of 9.4 percent was a near-perfect match for the USA’s at this time, yet there is no protest marching in Washington, D.C., or any other US city for that matter.

A possible reason for that difference is that in the US, there still exists a hope that job growth will come, that the current economic downturn will end, and that people still retain the freedom to reinvent themselves in order to better their present circumstances. This positivity may be the result of the wide range of people affected by unemployment stretching across demographics and therefore not finding commonality among local peers, or the usual buoyant “can-do” US attitude. The current long-term economic outlook would tend to contradict positivity.

It’s a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it’s a depression when you lose yours.
- Harry S. Truman

This is partly due to the depressing news presented to us by those we know and love struggling to come to terms with long-term unemployment, especially among the approximately 7 million people who have joined the 99 Club in the USA: people who have termed out of the available unemployment benefits. They represent slightly less than half of all unemployed…


Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

The unemployment figures don’t take into account a larger swathe of people. The current figure under-represents the chronically underemployed (those working multiple part-time jobs) or those who are contingent (both seasonal workers and contract workers to whom unemployment benefits are unavailable). While the reported unemployment figure of 9.4 percent converts to 14.5 million people, the true picture is closer to 26 million, when the 2.6 million people marginally attached to the workforce are added along with the number of persons employed part-time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers), which was at 8.9 million as recently as December 2010.

The hole we must innovate our way out of is a lot deeper than most people recognize. Except, perhaps, for the people at the bottom of it looking up. Where does this leave us?

Dig and ship versus design and build
We must start with the reality that corporations cannot guarantee anyone a lifetime job any more than corporations have a guarantee of immortality.
- John Snow

Jobs have gone. It’s not that they have been left unfilled, simply awaiting an economic turnaround. The jobs have gone, never to return. Whether replaced by technology-created efficiencies or exported to lower-cost economies, old mainline manufacturing jobs and data processing jobs have disappeared. The auto industry in the US is probably most emblematic of the shift in the US economy. Take the rapid bankruptcy or near-bankruptcy induced reduction in the number of vehicle models in production. This reduction had a cascade of effects up and down each auto manufacturer’s supply chain, from design and raw materials sourcing through to delivery, sales, and distribution—the number of people required to bring products to market has been significantly reduced. Those jobs are not coming back.

One reason is that local economic factors are tied to global economies now more than ever. Chrysler’s part ownership by Fiat means that cars that would have originally been designed in-house are now shared as platforms across the entire Fiat/Chrysler network. Similarly, General Motors has availed itself of the cover of bankruptcy to increase its investment in global partnerships, perhaps best represented by the success of GM in China. This is represented by the Chinese-designed Buick Lacrosse in the Chinese auto market, where it’s considered a direct competitor to BMW and Mercedes Benz as a luxury vehicle. It’s also seen in the manufacturing joint venture SAIC-GM-Wuling Automobile, which successfully sells minivans under the Wuling badge.

The offshore manufacturing of US brands is also symptomatic of a greater shift. Brands may reflect national origins, but their point of manufacture may be many thousands of miles from their “home.” The only jobs that seem to be staying put are those that cannot be moved: resource extraction (minerals, metals, and ores), domestic food production, and direct support services (such as trucking, healthcare, hospitality services). The US economy is sliding into a mode in which it provides raw materials to other resource-hungry nations, exporting low value-added ingredients for what will eventually become consumer goods that it will turn around and import. Either that or we’re becoming the Vanna Whites of the global economy.

It’s not the most intellectual job in the world, but I do have to know the letters.
- Vanna White

Recapturing and fostering the spirit of design and build is a necessity if the massive unemployment is to be addressed in any full measure. Which is the whole point: this is a spirit not to be created, but reinvented and restored to the heart of the US economic engine.

Exporting hope
The best way to appreciate your job is to imagine yourself without one.
- Oscar Wilde

One of the other factors influencing the US jobs situation is the very same “can-do” attitude that kept it ticking over for so long. The problem is that now, given the US’s wholesale exporting of its culture via consumer products, TV, film, and the Internet, that “can-do” attitude has been exported, too. Most recently this has been reflected in a book by Anand Giridharadas, India Calling. Based on his own search to discover his roots as a US-born child of both Northern and Southern Indian parents, Giridharadas recounts the way in which a brain drain of talent is gaining momentum, where Indians are returning to India as they see greater opportunities there than are available in the US. In essence, the US has begun exporting hope.

Previously, the United States was seen by the entrepreneurial as a promised land. For those with the ingenuity and the willingness to apply themselves, the sky was he limit. The best and the brightest came from around the world to attend its universities, and many stayed, helping to build some of the biggest and most high-performing companies in the world. In recent years, however, the desire of university graduates to stick around has diminished. Yale University professor and immigration researcher Vivek Wadhwa has discovered that many foreign-born workers in high-tech industries are returning home or contemplating such a return. The reasons for this are many, including better economic prospects or job opportunities. That the US, and other developed nations, have seen only recent anemic economic growth compared with developing nations like China or India is not lost on young entrepreneurs or individuals in the early stages of their careers.

The US is no longer seen as the only place to forge a future for oneself, because it has done such a phenomenal job of exporting its value system to the world. Not necessarily the values of consumerism and voyeurism, although they have been exported too, but primarily the values of hard work, self-reinvention, and yes, innovation. Which leads us to the US response.

Sputnik moments
Job security is gone. The driving force of a career must come from the individual.
- Homa Bahrami

In his most recent State of the Union address, President Obama noted that this is the time for another “Sputnik Moment” for the US, a time during which there must be sharp realization that complacency and half measures simply will not have the desired effect:

…The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America’s families have confronted for years. We cannot afford another so-called economic “expansion” like the one from last decade—what some call the “lost decade”—where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation…

… You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China’s not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany’s not waiting. India’s not waiting. These nations aren’t standing still. These nations aren’t playing for second place. They’re putting more emphasis on math and science. They’re rebuilding their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.

The US economy, for so much of the last century the bulwark of the global economy, needs revitalization. In thousands of businesses large and small, the path to success lies in creating space for the millions of underemployed and unemployed, so that these disenfranchised can add their intellectual weight to the economic transformation that must take place. How can we grow, smartly, wisely, and in such a way that we don’t need to strip jobs out of our enterprise every time there is a hiccup in global trade? We must find a way to make innovation not an addition to our enterprises, but the engine at the heart of what makes us successful. We have done it before. Others have learnt from that success.

We must remember what we have forgotten and get busy.

Read More

New from Primed Associates – Primed for Innovation Issue 1

Primed for Innovation Issue 1 - The Innovation Ecosystem

Primed for Innovation Issue 1:

Welcome to Primed for Innovation a primer on things to consider when you are interested in improving your organization’s approach to innovation. The following topics are offered as thought starters. [Read more...]
Read More

SXSW Interactive – Primed Associates will be there

For those of you who don’t know, Drew Marshall at Primed Associates is actively involved with #innochat, one of the most active chat groups on Twitter which meets every week on Thursday at Noon USA Eastern Time. One of the things that makes #innochat so engaging is that it attracts those who are keenly interested in innovation from around the world. Each week a new topic is presented, a framing post for the topic is posted on the #innochat site, and the group focuses on some key questions the topic raises.

At innochat we covered a wide range of subjects in 2010, such as:
• Collaborative Innovation – hosted by @Renee_Hopkins on January 11
• Explore the relationship between design thinking & innovation – hosted by @estephen on February 18
• Can we learn to be innovative? – hosted by @PaulSloane on March 18
• The Role of Consumers in Innovation – hosted by @Gwen_Ishmael on April 22
• Discovery-driven planning is a plan to learn – hosted by @Brioneja May 27
• Complexity vs. Complicated tackled with good design thinking – hosted by @jpamental on June 17
• Innovation Process Models – hosted by @SSusman on July 8
• Innovation Backwards: Leading Entrepreneurs to Innovation – hosted by @Renee_Hopkins on August 19
• Setting Cultures That Foster Open Innovation Crowdsourcing – hosted by @Gwen_Ishmael on September 9
• Crossing the O (Operations) Gap – hosted by @DanielleCass on October 14
• On building innovation communities – hosted by @AndreaMeyer on November 4
• Time-Value of Innovation and the 24 Hour Customer – hosted by @ExponentialEdge on December 9

To say it is fast and furious would be an understatement.

Well, with the idea that even those involved in #innochat can benefit from an change in perspective to drive their own approach to innovation, Renee Hopkins, one of #innochat’s current leaders (along with Gwen Ishmael and our technology guru, Jason Pamental), decided to create an #innochat event for SXSW 2011 Interactive. Here she is in her own pitch to the good folks at SXSW:

The regular Thursday noon Innochat has become hugely popular on Twitter. As founder of Innochat, I propose a live session with a mixed panel of innovation experts and entrepreneurs in which we’ll discuss business model theory and business model innovation and design as they pertain to specific start-ups and established companies. We will gather volunteers beforehand, entrepreneurs and representatives from existing companies who are willing to discuss their process of business model innovation and eager to get advice from the panel of Innochat experts. Business model innovation is a hot topic currently because entrepreneurs are discovering that without a clear picture of their business model success remains elusive. And established businesses facing threats are discovering that redesigning their business models may be the only thing that will save them. This topic is of particular interest at SXSW because many attendees are either startups or come from companies threatened by the rise of digital publishing of all kinds — the music industry, print media, the film industry, and the software industry, in particular — companies that critically need new business models to survive.

Needless to say, Renee’s pitch was accepted and she and Drew Marshall will be moderating this core conversation on Monday March 14 at 12:30PM (Austin time which is Central Standard Time). We hope to see you there. Or, see you participate on line by following the #innochat hashtag on Twitter.

Read More

The Entrepreneur Equation by Carol Roth

Are you ready? It’s such a simple question. When asked of the would-be entrepreneur inevitably the answer is an enthusiastic, “Sure!”, or, at the very least a more tempered, “I think so.” Contained within that one question is a whole universe of variables that business strategist Carol Roth seeks to unfold and hold up to the scrutiny of common sense and rationality in her book, The Entrepreneur Equation, which I was lucky enough to receive as an advance copy. Styled by her friends as the Lucy Van Pelt of the business world, Carol offers her assessment of how people should go about determining whether or not they really want, need or should be entrepreneurs.

Half measures are not an option and often, in the world of entrepreneurship, end in disappointment.

Seeing a book like this, questioning the basic foundation of the “can-do” ethos that powers so much of the spirit of enterprise in the USA, coming to the market at a time when small business is being touted as the savior of the economy, is a testament to Carol’s personnel commitment to supporting excellence and success. Certainly the advice it contains seems to fly in the face of conventional wisdom. But isn’t that what has been said about common sense – it’s not that common.

With over 90% of all entrepreneurs losing some or all of their investment within the first five, perhaps taking a closer look at the attitude and effort it takes to make a business work is warranted?

To call Carol a pragmatist would be to understate her willingness to address some fundamental flaws in the ethos surrounding building a business. With the enduring love affair between business and innovation, Carol’s approach is to dispel the notion that anyone with an idea could or should be in business for themselves. She focuses on the idea that a passion does not make a business and that an invention is not a business model. If a business is not desirable, feasible, or viable, it should not exist. Carol’s goal is to provide her readers with a useful set of assessments to determine whether they have the right idea and the right fit to create a business from the ground up.

This is not someone who hides her recommendations in a cloud of jargon or confusing “consultant-speak”. Carol calls it like she sees it. A hobby that you turn into a job is a “jobbie”; the call of the new, a business idea that will break you out of your everyday and perhaps hum-drum existence, is targeted at “The Shiny New Thing Syndrome”; and the bottom-line to Carol’s advice, she’s the friend who tells you that you have “Spinach in Your Teeth®”. It is rational, accessible, witty advice delivered in a frank and concise manner.

In reading Carol’s insights, I often found myself laughing at my own choices and furiously scribbling down notes to help me tighten my approach. The wisdom she shares from her own experience, and the experiences of others she taps into frequently, help make this book a great, low cost, low threat tool for assessing yourself and your ideas before you spend, and perhaps waste, a good deal of time, energy and effort. The best part about how Carol presents her ideas is how accessible she makes that advice. The “Personal Brainstorm” that concludes each chapter is only one of the many ways she makes her advice tangible. Which is what she is all about. Carol was, in her words, compelled, to write this book to help others.

To that end, Carol has partnered with the national non-profit organization SCORE, to help with their quest to create 1 million successful American businesses by 2017.

If your friends won’t tell you your business idea is no good, why not use Carol’s tools to conduct your own self assessment? After all, if The Entrepreneur Equation saves you from yourself, or better yet helps you to make a better business, Carol Roth may be the best friend you never met.

Read More

Finding the right box—innovation success is constraint-based

Some people are shoppers, some people are spendthrifts, and some people are hoarders. The same can be held true for companies. Some companies are acquisitive, some are profligate, and some hoard resources. There is a special breed of company that chooses to hoard intellectual property—whether they use it or not—or hoards data without thinking about its purpose. Information is only useful when used, and much of it has a surprisingly short shelf-life. A company that is demonstrably hoarding, Generate Company—an innovation-focused consulting firm based in Minneapolis, Minnesota—has taken to hoarding innovation processes. Not happy with creating and disseminating their own processes, they are now collecting them on a grand scale and brokering them. The end result is an innovation database with the superlative title “The World Database of Innovation.” Thank goodness they are not driven to hyperbole.

Setting aside the relative value of such a database for the time being, one very interesting piece of information has bubbled to the surface as a result of this information hoard. It seems that among the 163 different processes for innovation that have been accounted for thus far, common to those that have verifiable data points is that constraints are a significant factor in success. Based on their analysis of the information in their database records, scarcity of resources shows up as the single strongest driver of innovation within organizations in general. The power of constraints raises its head yet again.

Not all constraints are the same
The problem is all inside your head
She said to me
The answer is easy if you
Take it logically
I’d like to help you in your struggle
To be free…
There must be fifty ways
To leave your lover

- Paul Simon “50 Ways to Leave Your Lover”

For most organizations, the definition of constraints is usually confined to time, cost, and resources, but there are two other more powerful constraints to be considered at the outset of any innovation efforts: 1) constraint created when we define the challenge we will address, and 2) the constraint created when we define the opportunity we will target. These constraints are anchored in the strategic intent of our organization and in our will to achieve that intent. They lie at the intersection of what we want to do and what we will actually do. This intersection is often a gray area in organizations, filled with miscommunication, poor decisions, and limited attention spans.

Where most organizations get wrapped up in attempting to balance their competing operational constraints is in the direct management and enforcement of the imbalance among constraints, where much of innovation lies. The simple fact remains that if any one constraining factor changes, at least one other constraint will be affected. If the schedule for development is shortened, then the budget will likely need to be increased. If additional features are added, then the risks associated with releasing the product to market will increase, too. Each choice we make is a reflection of the associated constraints within which we manage. But a constraint is also something we can react against. A constraint can provide a foundation for pushing us in a new direction.

An artist faced with a blank canvas, access to all the materials and colors of paint she could possibly desire, and as much time as she wants, will likely find herself unhinged by the freedom if asked to paint whatever she chooses. The range of outcomes is infinite in this setting. If a single choice is made, however, such as a determination on who the painting is for, automatically provides the artist with a frame of reference within which to work. Regardless of the subsequent choices she makes, that first choice of constraint by the artist will directly inform all subsequent outcomes and her eventual success.

Powered by the right constraints
The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.
- Arthur C. Clark

The same can be said in product or service development when there is an ill-defined customer or market. In this situation, the product development team, or innovation group, will find itself floundering. Without a clearly defined customer, there is no one to build for, no problem to define and design against, and no way to assess whether or not you have successfully addressed a need. Yet when you look out at the range of products and services available, you might find yourself asking, “Who the heck was this intended for?” The constraint of a specific customer need is missing in action. Design and development efforts disconnected from customer need leads to products in search of a buyer.

A poorly identified customer may wreak more havoc on an initiative than any lack of funds or resources ever could, because it leaves innovation efforts untethered. Without anything to anchor new concepts to, any and all concepts will be satisfactory (or correspondingly unsatisfactory) and the only measure of success will be whether or not the effort is validated in the marketplace through sales. Determining success will be hit or miss, because even the absence of sales doesn’t necessarily mean that the effort is not useful to someone—it simply means that the market was not discovered or defined before an effort was expended.

The absence of a clearly defined target customer also upends the usefulness of managing resource and time constraints. Why bother limiting use when the stakes are so low? Why spend at all? All of which leaves us in the unenviable position of defending the indefensible and delivering the useless. Not exactly the best way to add value, is it?

Joy of constraints
The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees one’s self. And the arbitrariness of the constraint serves only to obtain precision of execution.
- Igor Stravinsky

Rather than being dismayed by constraints, those determined to innovate must learn to, if not love, then at least embrace them. By embracing constraints and recognizing the value of limits, the effort to overcome them may yield surprising results. Consider the perennial favorite example of those who have a deep and abiding passion for innovation—Steve Jobs. His intense dislike of buttons (he finds them aesthetically unappealing) has driven consumer product innovation in surprising ways.

Four years ago, prior to the release of the iPhone, Mr. Jobs’ dislike of buttons became something of fetishistic side dish in the hoopla over the game-changing nature of that device. It was perhaps most clearly on display when Mr. Jobs unveiled the remote control for Front Row, the media center software for Apple TV, when he reveled in the simplicity of the Apple remote and compared it on a presentation slide to a large, ugly complex remote with more than 40 buttons. “I don’t know that there has ever been a slide that captures what Apple’s about as much as this one,” Mr. Jobs said at the time.

This dislike led to a design constraint, which then led to some remarkable changes in the accepted way we interact with our personal digital devices. We are moving from hunting and pecking on tiny, ill-formed keyboards to swiping, flicking, and wiping our way into and through the information available to us on our nearly buttonless devices. The contact we make today may disappear into the ether, too, with the fast-approaching wave of gestural input-controlled devices, if the most recent Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas is any indication. All because one man with a love of black turtlenecks (if ever there was a design cliché) hates buttons.

Constraints are not our enemy. They are a fact. We can choose to endure them and use them for our purposes, or let them define our efforts in entirely negative ways. Define your purpose in relation to your intended customer and define your outcome in terms of their needs—in so doing, you can move the goalposts and change the nature of the competitive landscape. Make a sandbox of your own devising and discover the creativity inherent in constraints.

How are constraints defined in your organization? How might you make better use of your constraints?

Read More