Thursday, May 6
Please Don't Turn Idea Management into KM software!
I have been thinking a lot about the evolution of area of Idea Management. What will the market look like in a few years, what will companies be buying, who will they buy things from, what will the things be, and will they work?
Previously to Idea Management, I did a lot of work in the Knowledge Management (KM) area. I am therefore very concerned that Idea Management (IdM) risks suffering the same fate as KM. Specifically...
KM started with the best of intentions, allowing people to share knowledge in tacit and explicit forms
Tacit knowledge is a hard and fuzzy concept, and explicit knowledge is understandable - and available
Explicit knowledge is captured in computer systems sold by software vendors
Software vendors have a lot more money that independent consultants, and they swamp the market with tools
Tools are easy to buy and so companies start buying tools
Companies take ages to make a software selection, and then implementation lags by a number of months, with the evaluation team transitioning to an implementation team
Software - good and bad - is then implemented with little real thought to the employee and management impact. Change management or training initiatives take place, but they are usually unconnected with the software, or take place before people have had a chance to use the software
The software is poorly used because knowledge and sharing are inherently human processes. Plus the software was designed by software engineers who know (hopefully) how to make software work, but not how to make sure it is used
People stop using the software for a variety of reasons and the software becomes unused. The initial program sponsor has left the project team, and often the company
and now, guess what will happen? Will companies remember their great hopes for KM software and rush confidently to purchase Idea Management software? The chances are that companies will do what they are comfortable with - making easy decisions based on a superficial understanding of the business process and a cursory review of alternatives. And that means that many companies will buy poorly built software that addresses the perceived headline requirements (to the extent that they are bullet points on a check list) and that the same companies will underestimate the process work required to make the software - any software work.
For me, this is a bizarre issue. My company makes software for Idea Management - excellent software (of course). We also have extremely good business processes, and have developed a profound understanding for the human issues during our 6+ years of working in the area. It is great that the market will focus on software as we are ideally positioned. My real concern is that companies will buy the headlines and not do real due diligence, and in so doing they will fail in their implementations. And when they fail, they will not be allowed to try again. Moreover, if they fail, their failure story may resonate through an industry, spoiling the opportunities for more thoughtful innovators to do it properly.
So, I urge all people reading this to stop... think... remember how many failed collaborative/forum/community of practice and other great-sounding technologies we have bought... and then be realistic with Idea Management. Software may be easy to buy, but failure is still failure. Take the time to think through your real needs, and if you cannot convince management to do what is right, then do nothing. You'll help yourself and your fellow innovators.
Previously to Idea Management, I did a lot of work in the Knowledge Management (KM) area. I am therefore very concerned that Idea Management (IdM) risks suffering the same fate as KM. Specifically...
KM started with the best of intentions, allowing people to share knowledge in tacit and explicit forms
Tacit knowledge is a hard and fuzzy concept, and explicit knowledge is understandable - and available
Explicit knowledge is captured in computer systems sold by software vendors
Software vendors have a lot more money that independent consultants, and they swamp the market with tools
Tools are easy to buy and so companies start buying tools
Companies take ages to make a software selection, and then implementation lags by a number of months, with the evaluation team transitioning to an implementation team
Software - good and bad - is then implemented with little real thought to the employee and management impact. Change management or training initiatives take place, but they are usually unconnected with the software, or take place before people have had a chance to use the software
The software is poorly used because knowledge and sharing are inherently human processes. Plus the software was designed by software engineers who know (hopefully) how to make software work, but not how to make sure it is used
People stop using the software for a variety of reasons and the software becomes unused. The initial program sponsor has left the project team, and often the company
and now, guess what will happen? Will companies remember their great hopes for KM software and rush confidently to purchase Idea Management software? The chances are that companies will do what they are comfortable with - making easy decisions based on a superficial understanding of the business process and a cursory review of alternatives. And that means that many companies will buy poorly built software that addresses the perceived headline requirements (to the extent that they are bullet points on a check list) and that the same companies will underestimate the process work required to make the software - any software work.
For me, this is a bizarre issue. My company makes software for Idea Management - excellent software (of course). We also have extremely good business processes, and have developed a profound understanding for the human issues during our 6+ years of working in the area. It is great that the market will focus on software as we are ideally positioned. My real concern is that companies will buy the headlines and not do real due diligence, and in so doing they will fail in their implementations. And when they fail, they will not be allowed to try again. Moreover, if they fail, their failure story may resonate through an industry, spoiling the opportunities for more thoughtful innovators to do it properly.
So, I urge all people reading this to stop... think... remember how many failed collaborative/forum/community of practice and other great-sounding technologies we have bought... and then be realistic with Idea Management. Software may be easy to buy, but failure is still failure. Take the time to think through your real needs, and if you cannot convince management to do what is right, then do nothing. You'll help yourself and your fellow innovators.
Sunday, May 2
Book Review: "Ideas Are Free"
|
Ideas are Free: How the Idea Revolution is Liberating People and Transforming Organizations - Alan Robinson and Dean Schroeder; Berrett-Koehler; ISBN: 1576752828 |
The key to corporate success, according to Robinson and Schroeder, is encouraging employees to identify and share ideas, big and small, and implementing the improvements in all areas of the business. The argument is based on hundreds of case examples of the type "John realized the grinder was wearing down, but no one had said anything. His idea saved $80,000 and he was recognized at the town hall meeting". Whilst the overall premise of the book is laudable, the authors' focus on specific ideas and individual stories means the reader is left without a structure and without a process to act upon.
After the rather more insightful 1997 "Corporate Creativity" book, co-authored by Robinson, it was disappointing to see that there were no major theory developments, no new concepts, and no new ideas. The idea system they describe is no different from the suggestion box program, just with a little more thought. They zealously encourage 'small idea' generation as a source of tangible benefits and unlimited competitive advantage. They highlight the amazing benefits of 'focus' (a hint of the event-based approach developed by Imaginatik), and then fail to put it into context.
There are some highlights. The chapter on "The Pitfall of Rewards" makes a frightening read for anyone who mistakenly believes that money is good when it comes to employee ideas (picture the 20-year lawsuit United Airlines ended up with as a result of an employee dispute). And the concept of unlimited competitive advantage through small ideas is ingenious - their view is that big ideas are visible in the market and therefore can be easily copied, whereas many small process improvement ideas are not visible and therefore are more protected.
The greatest weakness, however, is the inconsistency between the theories posed and the case studies described. Rewards are bad, we are told, and yet most of the top idea submitters received financial rewards. A CEO requires employees to generate two identifiable ideas per week - with failure punishable by withheld bonuses - and then deliberately ignores the rampant 'idea black market' that is spawned as frightened employees struggle to maintain their earnings.
If you are just starting on your Idea Management journey, you will no doubt find the anecdotes useful. Just don't hold out your hopes for the answers, and make sure you read between the lines.
Friday, April 30
Articles to Watch: "Don't Laugh at Guilded Butterflies" The Economist 24 April 2004
Too many companies want one massive injection, one huge blockbuster, to last them for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, successful innovation is rarely like that." Thus begins an insightful article on the realities of business innovation. The Economist jokes at the introduction of the new Gillette battery-powered M3Power razor (great way to sell Duracell batteries), and yet they appreciate the need for companies to continually introduce novel changes that are neither radical nor inventive. "Blockbuster new products are harder and harder to come by, and big companies can do much better if they focus on making lots of small things better".
Interestingly, R&D departments are slated as companies have turned the research process into an "internal, bureaucratic driven process". My research into Stage-Gate and other methods bears this out. Most firms have jumped on the chance to automate their R&D processes, without any thought to the loss of inventiveness and creativity that comes through over-proceduralization. A simple example - companies implement IT-supported Stage-Gate systems because they want more visibility over their projects. Poor projects become visible quickly and so can be 'killed' (a lovely word - who on earth was at the wheel when they decided to use such murderous metaphors for harmless ideas). The best ideators know that many early stage ideas will not be pursued, and so try to hide their ideas. However, as good corporate citizens, they are expected to share the ideas and therefore subject themselves to public humiliation. So, what happens? The best people stop using the system, supported by the best managers who want their people to succeed. The Stage-Gate system then becomes emptied of the leading edge concepts, and becomes instead a boring project management system for the incremental concepts, and in the process ignoring the real reason for implementing the process in the first place.
The Economist rightly points out that innovation is going to get tougher, and that it needs to be systemized for companies to succeed. "Firms have to innovate continuously and incrementally these days to lift products out of the slew of commodities."
I did like the insight that marketing was probably to blame in the failure of innovations to take hold. I have done a lot of work on the various dimensions of Innovation, and Marketing, Launch and Consumer Experience are all-too-often ignored until it is too late.
In the end companies cannot survive on a single invention or innovation - the market always catches up. "Innovation and, yes, invention too, have to take place continually and systematically." I could have written those words myself :)
Interestingly, R&D departments are slated as companies have turned the research process into an "internal, bureaucratic driven process". My research into Stage-Gate and other methods bears this out. Most firms have jumped on the chance to automate their R&D processes, without any thought to the loss of inventiveness and creativity that comes through over-proceduralization. A simple example - companies implement IT-supported Stage-Gate systems because they want more visibility over their projects. Poor projects become visible quickly and so can be 'killed' (a lovely word - who on earth was at the wheel when they decided to use such murderous metaphors for harmless ideas). The best ideators know that many early stage ideas will not be pursued, and so try to hide their ideas. However, as good corporate citizens, they are expected to share the ideas and therefore subject themselves to public humiliation. So, what happens? The best people stop using the system, supported by the best managers who want their people to succeed. The Stage-Gate system then becomes emptied of the leading edge concepts, and becomes instead a boring project management system for the incremental concepts, and in the process ignoring the real reason for implementing the process in the first place.
The Economist rightly points out that innovation is going to get tougher, and that it needs to be systemized for companies to succeed. "Firms have to innovate continuously and incrementally these days to lift products out of the slew of commodities."
I did like the insight that marketing was probably to blame in the failure of innovations to take hold. I have done a lot of work on the various dimensions of Innovation, and Marketing, Launch and Consumer Experience are all-too-often ignored until it is too late.
In the end companies cannot survive on a single invention or innovation - the market always catches up. "Innovation and, yes, invention too, have to take place continually and systematically." I could have written those words myself :)
Article to Watch: Tom Malone on Internal Markets HBR April 2004
Every since eBay's valuation hit $10bn, there has been an obsessive fascination with market dynamics amongst business gurus. Gary Hamel's consulting firm, Strategos, was driven to distraction in trying to make them work. The Center for Business Innovation, a think tank that used to be part of CGE&Y, wrote white papers and software on the potential of markets for idea development and innovation. And so, in these illustrious footsteps, we find Tom Malone.
A series of well-crafted anecdotes invites us to consider the benefits of internal markets to pitch projects, improve sales forecasting, and allocating assets. These examples are interesting more in what they leave out, that what they keep in.
I have investigated idea markets for the last five years and I keep coming back to the same conclusions. Markets require transparency in order to function. In order to be transparent, an idea must be shared, for without this, it is impossible to set a value on it. Once an idea is shared, part of its value is lost. An idea can be improved through sharing, that is true, but the imposition of a market framework for early stage inventions is detrimental to the long term viability of the concept.
How can a manager value an idea? Give them pretend money - what is the incentive in that? Hey, let's make it more complex by allowing individual employees to buy 'options' in a concept, so they can 'sell short' or 'buy long' to demonstrate their faith or lack of it. Right... yes, everyone is experienced in complex mathematics. We use options every day of our lives, to work out if we should buy milk today or tomorrow (no, hang on, I've lost the plot. We use cash to buy a bottle of milk, or a credit card). Options are complex in the real world for real world applications, such as stocks and bonds. They are a hard concept for individuals to grasp. Now, add on to that the inevitable fuzzy nature of early stage ideas, and you are asking the blind to lead the deaf through a mine field. Aie!
I do like papers like these because they make you think. You may not agree with the concepts, but they kick your brain into gear.
The article is available online at
A series of well-crafted anecdotes invites us to consider the benefits of internal markets to pitch projects, improve sales forecasting, and allocating assets. These examples are interesting more in what they leave out, that what they keep in.
I have investigated idea markets for the last five years and I keep coming back to the same conclusions. Markets require transparency in order to function. In order to be transparent, an idea must be shared, for without this, it is impossible to set a value on it. Once an idea is shared, part of its value is lost. An idea can be improved through sharing, that is true, but the imposition of a market framework for early stage inventions is detrimental to the long term viability of the concept.
How can a manager value an idea? Give them pretend money - what is the incentive in that? Hey, let's make it more complex by allowing individual employees to buy 'options' in a concept, so they can 'sell short' or 'buy long' to demonstrate their faith or lack of it. Right... yes, everyone is experienced in complex mathematics. We use options every day of our lives, to work out if we should buy milk today or tomorrow (no, hang on, I've lost the plot. We use cash to buy a bottle of milk, or a credit card). Options are complex in the real world for real world applications, such as stocks and bonds. They are a hard concept for individuals to grasp. Now, add on to that the inevitable fuzzy nature of early stage ideas, and you are asking the blind to lead the deaf through a mine field. Aie!
I do like papers like these because they make you think. You may not agree with the concepts, but they kick your brain into gear.
The article is available online at
Article to Watch: Michael Hammer on "Operational Innovation" HBR April 2004
It is amazing what passes for new in innovation these days. Most business books on innovation have included 'operational innovation' as one of the best means of delivering value, and this article has more than a hint of deja vue for me.
Hammer defines Operational Innovation as "the invention and deployment of new ways of doing work". He describes several case studies, from Progressive Insurance to Dell, and highlights the extradordinary benefits gained from such work, but laments in the infrequency with which they occur - "by my estimate, no more than 10% of large enterprises have made a serious and successful effort at it".
Operational Innovation is relatively reliable and low cost, certainly compared to new product development and technology introductions. The main reasons are:
The solution involves finding an area as the testbed for innovation and convincing management by finding role models in and outside your industry. The solution itself will come through identifying and defying 'constraining assumptions' (a creativity technique), and rethinking critical dimensions of work (i.e. rethink the what, when, where, why parts of the work process).
Ultimately Michael is spot on. Operational Innovation is very important, relatively easy to do, fairly low risk, and not overly expensive. Why therefore aren;t more companies doing it? It is my view that innovation itself is still under-represented in the executive mindset, and that until we address this imbalance, anything innovative that does not look like R&D or a new training program will be a hard sell. Once that battle is won, Operational Innovation will be one of the 8 - 10 major innovation initiatives that all leading companies will follow, and - fingers crossed - one or two of the laggards pick up as well.
The article is available online at
Hammer defines Operational Innovation as "the invention and deployment of new ways of doing work". He describes several case studies, from Progressive Insurance to Dell, and highlights the extradordinary benefits gained from such work, but laments in the infrequency with which they occur - "by my estimate, no more than 10% of large enterprises have made a serious and successful effort at it".
Operational Innovation is relatively reliable and low cost, certainly compared to new product development and technology introductions. The main reasons are:
- business culture undervalues operations
- operations are out of sit (and out of mind-set)
- nowbody owns it
The solution involves finding an area as the testbed for innovation and convincing management by finding role models in and outside your industry. The solution itself will come through identifying and defying 'constraining assumptions' (a creativity technique), and rethinking critical dimensions of work (i.e. rethink the what, when, where, why parts of the work process).
Ultimately Michael is spot on. Operational Innovation is very important, relatively easy to do, fairly low risk, and not overly expensive. Why therefore aren;t more companies doing it? It is my view that innovation itself is still under-represented in the executive mindset, and that until we address this imbalance, anything innovative that does not look like R&D or a new training program will be a hard sell. Once that battle is won, Operational Innovation will be one of the 8 - 10 major innovation initiatives that all leading companies will follow, and - fingers crossed - one or two of the laggards pick up as well.
The article is available online at
Sunday, April 25
My Research Hot Topics - for April to June 2004
The Innovation Double-Cyclone How can companies accelerate the identification, development and launch of innovative products, services and business methods in a way that overcomes many of the inherent weaknesses of the 'Stage-Gate' process.
Idea Management with a Global Workforce How should international companies integrate ideas, insights and experiences from non-English speakers to increase the diversity of thinking and experience.
Metrics for Disruptive Products and Services How can companies predict the potential success of disruptive concepts, given that traditional market research techniques habitually 'kill' the most innovative concepts.
Concept Presentation How can innovators demonstrate more compelling business cases to executives, given that many excellent concepts are rejected due to poor concept presentation.
Idea Management with a Global Workforce How should international companies integrate ideas, insights and experiences from non-English speakers to increase the diversity of thinking and experience.
Metrics for Disruptive Products and Services How can companies predict the potential success of disruptive concepts, given that traditional market research techniques habitually 'kill' the most innovative concepts.
Concept Presentation How can innovators demonstrate more compelling business cases to executives, given that many excellent concepts are rejected due to poor concept presentation.
Saturday, April 17
How do you sell leaders on the need for innovation?
Discussion Thread - "How do you sell leaders on the need for innovation?"
Posted on the FastCompany CoF mailing list - http://www.fastcompany.com/cof/list_help.jsp?m=3209105&l=cell-200034
CELL-200034 Digest for Thursday, April 15, 2004.
1. How do you sell leaders on the need for innovation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chuck Frey
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:03:04 -0500
I keep hearing from a number of different sources that the senior-level executives of many companies "just don't get it" -- they're unconvinced of the need for innovation, and are only too happy to maintain the status quo. Therefore, here's a question for your consideration:
What strategies have you found to be most effective in selling your organization's leaders on the need for an ongoing commitment to and investment in innovation?
Best Regards,
Chuck Frey
InnovationTools
----- Message from on Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:25:00 EDT -----
From: Andy
Subject: Executive Commitment
I have found that you first have to get their attention with more than words about the need to innovate. What some leaders respond to are examples of successful innovation efforts in other organizations AND the metrics linking these efforts with concrete outcomes (e.g., product/process/services improvements, documented cost savings). In other words, "Provide me with some proof of how others have used innovation to impact the bottom line and I'll at least listen." This is similar to the old expression of "Not Invented Here" (NIH).
Currently, considerable risk can be perceived in being the first at about anything. This, of course, has been the case throughout history (e.g., industrial leaders initially rejecting the telephone, xerography--"Hey, we've got carbon paper!", Post-Its, the submarine, et cetera).
One approach involves regular, single-event brainstorming guided by a flexible, "mixed-scanning" (Etzioni) innovation (i.e., constantly monitoring both short- and long-term task environment horizons).
Andy
----- Message from on Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:25:00 EDT -----
From: Mark Turrell (Imaginatik)
Subject: Executive Commitment
The issue of gaining executive buy-in - and real (financial) commitment - will be critical to the development of innovation as a corporate discipline, and as an engine to drive systematic innovation processes in the business. Innovation itself is an age-old topic, and we need to understand why past methods of 'convincing' management failed in order to avoid making the same mistakes again. Now, I am not hopeful for all companies - many firms are too cheap, think they can get away with a $10K consulting brainstorm, or feel they can get enough by buying 20 copies of Clayton Christensen's latest book (none of them opened). That's fine - we cannot help everybody, and life is hard.
The enlightened companies did not start out as being pro-innovation. Something had to happen to get the executive interest. Opportunities include:
- Burning Platform - something really bad has happened (e.g. Ernst & Young is barred from gaining new clients in the US for 6 months - how's that going to affect your revenue plan, hey?)
- Competitive Pressure - your competition has done something unexpected, or a new player has entered the market with a groundbreaking product (think Dell versus Compaq in the early 2000s - cheap, build to order computers)
- The New Broom - a new executive has entered the firm, he or she does not care about the past, they have aggressively priced stock options and need to make a difference fast
- The Revenue and Cost Hole - someone - a CFO or the like - has run the numbers and they have worked out there is a gap between expected turnover / cost reduction targets and what they can see right now (think General Mills who are trying to cut $1bn in costs following their acquisition of Pillsbury, but who only achieved $200m in the easy way leaving 'innovation' as the only way to make up the gap)
- How Big is Your Golf Club - this is going to be the nicest one - the best companies have already invested - a lot - in innovation. The rest are swimming along, happy to innovate by accident (more creative thinking and invention that a real innovation process). All of a sudden the good accidents do not happen, and they look across and see that their competitors, the people they look up to, are doing something different and better. Hey, they think, why am I spending $500K on S-O regulatory compliance work and nothing on the future of the firm? How come Bank of America has a team of 25+ innovators? Why did Bayer buy an Idea Management system - can that really be so much better that paper and e-mail? Am I missing out? Therefore the golf club comparison - executives need to keep up with each other :)
Now to the 'how to get them to listen' part. We have been dong work on measuring the Financial Impact of Innovation (F-IOI). That helps as it puts a financial context to the argument. Executives do not become execs because of their vision and their empathy for creativity. They are in the main hard-nosed business people. Even if you have a visionary executive, they still have to convince others to make the investment.
There are many ways to make executives listen, and to an extent the wider population out there can just wait because it is a wave that is going to happen. Now you will need to do a bunch of stuff if you would like to be ahead of the wave, or you can sit back and wait. The suggestion of a one-off, or a series of brainstorms is not bad, but it is not particularly ambitious either. If your goal as a corporate innovator is to get a budget of $200K to pay for 1 full time internal person, an admin, and run six external brainstorms, cool, hey, super cool. If your goal is to make a substantial difference to the company (we are talking accounting for 5% of annual 2004 / 2005 revenue) then you need to be a lot more ambitious.
If anyone needs any help, our web site has some useful info, and you can contact me directly if you'd like.
Many thanks,
Mark
Posted on the FastCompany CoF mailing list - http://www.fastcompany.com/cof/list_help.jsp?m=3209105&l=cell-200034
CELL-200034 Digest for Thursday, April 15, 2004.
1. How do you sell leaders on the need for innovation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chuck Frey
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:03:04 -0500
I keep hearing from a number of different sources that the senior-level executives of many companies "just don't get it" -- they're unconvinced of the need for innovation, and are only too happy to maintain the status quo. Therefore, here's a question for your consideration:
What strategies have you found to be most effective in selling your organization's leaders on the need for an ongoing commitment to and investment in innovation?
Best Regards,
Chuck Frey
InnovationTools
----- Message from on Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:25:00 EDT -----
From: Andy
Subject: Executive Commitment
I have found that you first have to get their attention with more than words about the need to innovate. What some leaders respond to are examples of successful innovation efforts in other organizations AND the metrics linking these efforts with concrete outcomes (e.g., product/process/services improvements, documented cost savings). In other words, "Provide me with some proof of how others have used innovation to impact the bottom line and I'll at least listen." This is similar to the old expression of "Not Invented Here" (NIH).
Currently, considerable risk can be perceived in being the first at about anything. This, of course, has been the case throughout history (e.g., industrial leaders initially rejecting the telephone, xerography--"Hey, we've got carbon paper!", Post-Its, the submarine, et cetera).
One approach involves regular, single-event brainstorming guided by a flexible, "mixed-scanning" (Etzioni) innovation (i.e., constantly monitoring both short- and long-term task environment horizons).
Andy
----- Message from on Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:25:00 EDT -----
From: Mark Turrell (Imaginatik)
Subject: Executive Commitment
The issue of gaining executive buy-in - and real (financial) commitment - will be critical to the development of innovation as a corporate discipline, and as an engine to drive systematic innovation processes in the business. Innovation itself is an age-old topic, and we need to understand why past methods of 'convincing' management failed in order to avoid making the same mistakes again. Now, I am not hopeful for all companies - many firms are too cheap, think they can get away with a $10K consulting brainstorm, or feel they can get enough by buying 20 copies of Clayton Christensen's latest book (none of them opened). That's fine - we cannot help everybody, and life is hard.
The enlightened companies did not start out as being pro-innovation. Something had to happen to get the executive interest. Opportunities include:
- Burning Platform - something really bad has happened (e.g. Ernst & Young is barred from gaining new clients in the US for 6 months - how's that going to affect your revenue plan, hey?)
- Competitive Pressure - your competition has done something unexpected, or a new player has entered the market with a groundbreaking product (think Dell versus Compaq in the early 2000s - cheap, build to order computers)
- The New Broom - a new executive has entered the firm, he or she does not care about the past, they have aggressively priced stock options and need to make a difference fast
- The Revenue and Cost Hole - someone - a CFO or the like - has run the numbers and they have worked out there is a gap between expected turnover / cost reduction targets and what they can see right now (think General Mills who are trying to cut $1bn in costs following their acquisition of Pillsbury, but who only achieved $200m in the easy way leaving 'innovation' as the only way to make up the gap)
- How Big is Your Golf Club - this is going to be the nicest one - the best companies have already invested - a lot - in innovation. The rest are swimming along, happy to innovate by accident (more creative thinking and invention that a real innovation process). All of a sudden the good accidents do not happen, and they look across and see that their competitors, the people they look up to, are doing something different and better. Hey, they think, why am I spending $500K on S-O regulatory compliance work and nothing on the future of the firm? How come Bank of America has a team of 25+ innovators? Why did Bayer buy an Idea Management system - can that really be so much better that paper and e-mail? Am I missing out? Therefore the golf club comparison - executives need to keep up with each other :)
Now to the 'how to get them to listen' part. We have been dong work on measuring the Financial Impact of Innovation (F-IOI). That helps as it puts a financial context to the argument. Executives do not become execs because of their vision and their empathy for creativity. They are in the main hard-nosed business people. Even if you have a visionary executive, they still have to convince others to make the investment.
There are many ways to make executives listen, and to an extent the wider population out there can just wait because it is a wave that is going to happen. Now you will need to do a bunch of stuff if you would like to be ahead of the wave, or you can sit back and wait. The suggestion of a one-off, or a series of brainstorms is not bad, but it is not particularly ambitious either. If your goal as a corporate innovator is to get a budget of $200K to pay for 1 full time internal person, an admin, and run six external brainstorms, cool, hey, super cool. If your goal is to make a substantial difference to the company (we are talking accounting for 5% of annual 2004 / 2005 revenue) then you need to be a lot more ambitious.
If anyone needs any help, our web site has some useful info, and you can contact me directly if you'd like.
Many thanks,
Mark
