Author Archives: Braden Kelley

About Braden Kelley

Braden Kelley is a Human-Centered Experience, Innovation and Transformation consultant at HCL Technologies, a popular innovation speaker, and creator of the FutureHacking™ and Human-Centered Change™ methodologies. He is the author of Stoking Your Innovation Bonfire from John Wiley & Sons and Charting Change (Second Edition) from Palgrave Macmillan. Braden is a US Navy veteran and earned his MBA from top-rated London Business School. Follow him on Linkedin, Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram.

Checkbox Hiring Doesn’t Lead to Innovation

Checkbox Hiring Doesn't Lead to InnovationWhen looking for a new job, it seems like 95% of the time people will only hire you to do the job you just did, and the other 5% of the time will provide an equal mix of once in a lifetime opportunities and jobs you shouldn’t take.

So why aren’t organizations more innovative in their hiring processes?

First, recruiters are tasked with providing candidates for interviews who meet certain education and experience requirements set out by the hiring manager. It quickly becomes a case of “you get what you ask for, not what you need.”

Recruiters provide a set of potential recruits that tick the boxes and look very similar on paper. Time constrained hiring managers then interview the people they are provided with and figure they are a “smart” hire because they have the education and experience. This generally means hiring the guy or gal that has done the same job before, preferably at a larger or more respected company.

Need a JobFor example, a restaurant will hire a waiter who has been a waiter before, even if the only reason he is available is that he was a crap waiter every other place he worked. In our hiring system, someone who has experience almost always gets the job, regardless of ability and capacity for growth. Meanwhile the gal who dreams of being a waitress, whose passion for the profession would make her an amazing waitress as she strives to create the perfect customer experience, never gets hired. Where does this leave the person with amazing potential but no direct experience in the position they seek?

They are confined to finding that desperate manager with an entry level opening who just had three people turn down their offer and has nobody left in their pipeline.

We hire people the same way we hire an office chair:

  • Four wheels? – check
  • Tilt? – check
  • Height adjustment? – no
  • …and on to the candidate who might have a height adjustment built-in

Consequently we end up with amazing consumer marketers working as engineering firm accountants because they started out in accounting for an engineering firm straight out of university and now can only get accounting jobs. How much stronger would our economy be if we could find an innovative way to allocate our human resources to those places where their star potential would be unleashed?

Now granted, some companies will allow someone from accounting to move to marketing within the company, but even in those companies that do facilitate this type of movement, the great majority really occurs at the managerial level with individuals the organization views as skilled managers with the potential to move up in the organization. So where does this leave the staff accountant whose real talent is not management but something else like consumer marketing?

Frustrated Hiring ManagerUsually this person is doomed to remain an unhappy accountant, potentially seeking an MBA that may or may not successfully allow them to transition over to the world of marketing.

So why don’t we change the hiring process?

Well, change is hard, and checklists are easy. “I don’t have time to interview as it is, I’ve got work to do! I certainly don’t have time to think about creating a better way to hire. My list of questions works pretty well.”

The problem is that people can only look at how candidates perform that have actually been hired in terms of how long they stay, and similar metrics. We cannot measure how much more we would have benefited if we had hired someone else that we didn’t even consider.

But, if we continue to hire the same type of people that we’ve always hired in the same way that our competitors continue to hire, then we will never achieve a business strategy innovation.

So what’s the answer?

There is no magic answer, but here are some guidelines to consider:

  1. Have recruiters identify and provide at least one or two candidates who show passion but don’t have the experience or education tick boxes checked
  2. Don’t focus on what someone has done, have them show you what they can do
  3. Think about the key tasks and challenges of the position
    • Have the candidate tell you, or even better, show you how they would approach them (remember lingo and document formatting can be learned – do they understand what’s involved?)
  4. Ask them what job they would really like to do in the organization
    • Regardless of what job they’ve applied for
    • Maybe even go so far as telling them that the job they applied for has been filled and see how they react (What job would they choose to interview for?)
  5. Ask them if they think they are qualified to do that other job and if not why not
  6. Movie producers don’t interview actors, they have them audition
    • Use appropriate role plays
    • Have candidates present if doing presentations are part of their role
    • Give them a small piece of real world work to do to see both how they approach it and how well they execute it
    • Have candidates pitch you your product as if you were a potential customer (even if it is not a sales role)

Click here to download my new white paper on ‘Harnessing the Global Talent Pool to Accelerate Innovation’

Final Thought: There is one other side benefit to hiring people with the passion and capability for the job, but not the experience, they’ll usually take less money upfront and won’t be turned off by probationary periods.

Build a Common Language of Innovation

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Join Braden Kelley in London for an Innovation Masterclass

Join Braden Kelley in London for a 3-Day Innovation MasterclassPlease join me March 14-16, 2012 in London, England for a three day innovation masterclass based on my popular book Stoking Your Innovation Bonfire.

This Three Day Innovation Event with Braden Kelley will help you learn how to create a common language of innovation in your organization, how to identify your unique barriers to innovation, and how to create innovation excellence in the same way that you strive for operational excellence or quality. We will explore innovation investment strategy and how to create a sustainable culture of innovation.

We will look at how to craft an effective innovation portfolio, the importance of insights and organizational psychology to innovation success, and much, much more.

Come join me for this interactive innovation masterclass in London at the Park Plaza Hotel from March 14-16, 2012. Space is limited, so act now.

For More Information Click Here

Why Seattle Needs Double-Decker Buses

Why Seattle Needs Double-Decker BusesTraffic is a problem for drivers and bus riders alike. When traffic gets bad, it gets even worse for buses downtown. Here is why:

Transit agencies, in their quest to put more capacity on popular routes, have added long “bendy” buses to their fleets. The problem is that these buses require twice the available space before an intersection to be able to move from one block to another. They also have more difficulty changing lanes and negotiating corners than standard buses. During periods of heavy traffic this often results in “bendy” buses being unable to move to the next block for more than one light cycle, backing up traffic behind them and delaying other, shorter buses that might have fit into the smaller space in front of them. The answer?

Double Decker BusSeattle and other communities should take a second look at double-decker buses for popular routes that traverse the city center or look to banish “bendy” buses from downtown routes altogether. Double-decker buses are only slightly taller than most standard buses, have a smaller footprint than bendy buses, and give riders a nice view of the city.

Now I must say that I did one time see a double-decker public bus cruising through downtown Seattle the other day. It was a route 417 on its way to Mukilteo and it effortlessly cruised through a yellow light to get the last spot in the bus zone (one a bendy bus wouldn’t have fit in).

I don’t know if the regional transit bureau serving areas north of Seattle has more than one double-decker bus in their fleet or whether this is a test bus for a future purchase, but it sure looked better cruising through downtown Seattle than a bendy bus bouncing up and down. There is nothing quite like the view from the upper-deck of a double-decker bus as you cruise through a city. I hope this is the sign of more to come. Bendy buses may be a newer concept, but double-decker buses are a better one. Oh yeah, and keep the WiFi coming, people love their WiFi on the buses. 🙂

Build a Common Language of Innovation

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Everybody Deserves a Little Design

Everybody Deserves a Little DesignI was flipping through the throwaway coupon circular the other day to see if there were any coupons for anything that I buy anyways, and I came across a couple of items that for me it wasn’t immediately obvious what they were. At the bottom you have an item that looks like a cross between a milk bottle and a flower, but is in fact a room freshener spray, and at the top you have an item that almost looks like a night light but is a room freshener. Both of these are part of the new Glade Expressions line from SC Johnson. I love it that more companies are paying more attention to not just the function of their products, but the form too. And after all, doesn’t everybody deserve a little design in their life?

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Are you good enough?

Are you good enough?Unless you have invented a completely new product or service, it is very likely that there are large competitors already in your marketplace, established competitors that you will be trying to outwit and outmaneuver. Even if you do have a completely new product or service, customers still have alternatives. For example, the Segway entered the marketplace with a “revolutionary product with no competition”, but the truth is that it entered a marketplace with a smorgasbord of alternative competition (walking, bicycling, roller-skating, skateboarding, etc.). This alternative or substitute competition has proven far stronger than any direct competitor ever could. So what can a small firm do to outmaneuver the big guys or outwit the sneaky substitute competition that is easy to overlook in the passion of the startup process?

The key to any startup outwitting or outmaneuvering the established players begins with strategic innovation. To create a strategic innovation you must first truly understand competition in your industry. Competition amongst firms in any marketplace is typically defined by a few key product or service features (value dimensions). In microprocessors the defining competitive feature in the minds of 90′s consumers was megahertz, while in assembled computers the keys were megahertz and megabytes. These two industries had yet to be fully commoditized so the arms race was along these dimensions of value. In a fully commoditized industry however, firms end up competing mostly on the value dimension of price. Why is this true?

The answer is that in a fully commoditized industry, consumers find the alternatives to be “good enough” on the value dimensions that matter to them and so the consumer generally selects the alternative with the lowest price. This behavior drives price competition and lower margins, and makes commodity industries generally not a nice place to be. So how do you avoid product commoditization or how do you create a strategic innovation in a commoditized industry?

Strategic innovations allow your organization to avoid or rise above commoditization. In addition to an in-depth understanding of your industry’s competitive environment, strategic innovation requires an intimate understanding of the customers. From this intimate understanding you are hoping to identify a value dimension that is incredibly important to the customer but woefully under served. This value dimension could be price, as Southwest Airlines proved in the airline industry, but most likely will be something else. Starbucks‘ strategic innovation was developed along the value dimensions of:

  1. A consistent and repeatable exceptional coffee experience
  2. A network of convenient locations

Strategic innovation requires that your product or service is “good enough” across the value dimensions that currently matter to customers, and creates “customer delight” on a value dimension that you identify through your extensive customer research as being incredibly important but woefully underserved (see Figure 1). Once you identify such a value dimension the difficult work truly begins. Now you must ask yourself how easy would it be for my competition (direct or substitute) to begin competing on this value dimension instead?

If it would be relatively easy for your competition to replicate your insights and the resulting product or service, then you have discovered a sustaining innovation – an innovation that takes the product or service to a higher level of value for the customer, but not capable of transforming your position in the industry. A true strategic innovation is powerful precisely because it will be incredibly difficult for the established competition to replicate. How did Southwest Airlines succeed by competing on price?

Southwest Airlines achieved strategic innovation not because they recognized that price was important to customers, but because they created an organization from the ground up that was capable of delivering low fares with great service. Their ground up organizational focus on people and cost ensured success where previous low fare carriers had failed. Established competitors have been unable to replicate their success. Delta with Song and United with Ted both crashed and burned in dramatic fashion. To get a better idea of what goes into a strategic innovation, look at Figure 2 to see a few of the key components of Southwest’s success:

Let’s shift back to you now. Once you’ve got that great product or service idea and possibly even a value dimension to build your company’s strategic innovation around, how do you get traction on that steep road to success?

Even if you have the greatest widget known to mankind, the likes of which nobody has ever seen before, you can’t just open a storefront and wait for the customers to walk in. You have to go out and effectively market your widget by first selecting who to sell to. Refuse to make this decision and you are doomed. Make the wrong decision and you will burn through valuable cash and potentially burn up any chance of creating success (no matter how good your product or service is). The key to gaining traction is identifying where the greatest customer pain solvable by you is, and for which customers are willing to pay a relative unknown to solve the pain for them (see Figure 3).

Encountering companies or consumers not willing to buy from an unknown is a key hurdle that some entrepreneurs never overcome, sentiment embodied in the popular phrase “Nobody ever got fired for hiring IBM.” This resistance may require you to seed your market by entering less than ideal arrangements with leading influencers in your target market. Being first is daunting for buyers and may require financial encouragement and hand holding, so that you have the opportunity to turn them into passionate advocates for your product or service in the future.

If you have created a truly valuable product or service, and ideally some level of strategic innovation to go with it, now hopefully you will have the time and opportunity to gain a foothold in your market and expand into other niches before the established competitors are able to replicate your success.

Build a Common Language of Innovation

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

How Not to Do Social Media

How Not to Do Social MediaDespite the fact that Twitter has been around since 2006 and Facebook has been around since 2004, social media is still the bright shiny object in the room (it’s still the current marketing fad). People still think they are being innovative if they use it, and unfortunately many people still approach it as something separate and scary instead of treating it as just one tool in the toolbox of anyone working in marketing or innovation. Yes, I linked social media to innovation in the last sentence and that’s because in the same way that social media is a tool that all marketers must learn how to use as part of an integrated marketing campaign, innovation managers must also learn how to use social media properly as part of their innovation efforts.

So let’s get to our latest case study of how not to do social media by taking a look at a poorly run Facebook contest.

Back in July I wrote an article about the effect of social media on contests called – Does Social Media Corrupt Contests?

This article was written from an outsider’s perspective looking in. Well, in December I decided to dive into the Facebook contesting world and enter a contest for an energy-efficient big screen television hosted by the NEEA in hopes of winning a 55″ Samsung LED TV. Here is a quote from their Energy Efficient Electronics micro-site about what they do:

The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) is a private non-profit organization funded by Northwest utilities, the Energy Trust of Oregon and the Bonneville Power Administration. NEEA works in collaboration with its stakeholders and strategic market partners to accelerate the sustained market adoption of energy-efficient products, technologies and practices. NEEA’s market transformation efforts address energy efficiency in homes, businesses and industry. Its mission is to mobilize the Northwest to become increasingly energy efficient for a sustainable future.

My local utility, Puget Sound Energy, is a member of this organization.

Now let’s get to why my experience with this contest makes this an example of how not to do social media.

Background: The contest organizers – MartketShift Strategies (on behalf of NEEA) – operated the contest on Facebook. It was only open to people living in a handful of states and involved submitting captions for up to five photos provided by the contest organizers for public voting and judging of the finalists. Five televisions were up for grabs as prizes. There were two example captioned pictures – one using humor, and one focused on energy-efficiency. I decided to focus on humor. The rules stated that the five entries for each picture receiving the most votes would then be considered the finalists and would be judged, and that nobody could win more than one prize.

Here is a quick chronology of my experience highlighting some of the strategic failure points:

  1. I never saw the contest mentioned anywhere – including in my utility bill – a friend of mine who enters contests as a hobby suggested that I enter – so I did
  2. In order to enter the contest I had to “like” the Energy Forward page (and allow the contest app access to my Facebook account) – which I was hesitant to do
  3. Anyone who I asked to vote for my entries would have to also “like” the Energy Forward page and then also allow the contest app access to THEIR Facebook account. This is a big hurdle, and in fact most contest entries ended up with ZERO votes or one vote – including some of the ultimate ‘winners’ – but more on that later.
  4. I’m assuming the contest was run to support of some sort of educational goal or action goal around some televisions being more energy efficient than others, but the benefits of one TV over another were not immediately clear or integrated into the contest
  5. My wife and I each voted for my entries ONCE PER DAY and I picked up a few votes from other people. Meanwhile, apparently there was a hole in the application that allowed some individuals to cheat and vote for themselves lots of times per day by refreshing the page and voting again or whatever. The end result was that on the leaderboard you could clearly see that most of the leaders had many more ‘votes’ than ‘views’ (a legitimate vote registered both a view and a vote while a page refresh vote did not increment the view counter).
  6. When the votes versus views issue was brought to the attention of the contest organizers, instead of disqualifying the offending entries they chose to hide the number of votes entries had received
  7. Tweets to @nwalliance with concerns about the contest went unanswered
  8. The gaming behavior was allowed to stand and so three of my entries did not qualify as finalists, but even with the gaming behavior two of my entries did qualify as finalists
  9. The contest organizers then chose to not even follow their own rules, and when the winners were announced there were two ‘winners’ who were not even finalists – in fact one of the ‘winners’ was not even in the Top 14 vote getters – meaning that their entry probably did not even receive any votes (most entries had zero votes). This of course caused a huge uproar.
  10. Then probably most shockingly, the contest organizers in response to the public outcry responded “NEEA has full discretion…to change the rules at any time if needed for the best interests of the Contest and the participants.”
  11. In the end the contest organizers decided to award two more televisions, but ended up awarding them to people who gamed the contest (more votes than views), so the end result was that of the seven televisions awarded, five went to people who gamed the system (more votes than views) and two to non-finalists.

So what can we learn?

The most important thing to learn from this example of how not to do social media is that when utilizing social media as a tool to help you achieve your innovation or marketing campaign goals, you must keep those goals front and center in everything you do and ask if each campaign component supports your goals and your strategy. This is also a great example of how lots of people will tell you they are social media experts, and not really know the first thing about how to utilize the tools properly to support innovation or marketing campaign goals.

You can also see from this example that contests can be a hornets nest and that more often than not people try to game the system. This is why some people who provide idea management software solutions have chosen not to have badges and other similar elements (or to allow for those components to be turned off). This is also why if you choose to have any kind of voting component, particularly where any kind of prize is involved, that you set very clear guidelines for voting and do so in a way that maximizes the chance that the voting ends up being about the quality of the submission and not about the size of the entrants’ network.

‘Viral’ doesn’t come for free. Social media experts will try and convince you to use the tool to go ‘viral’ and get the crowd involved, but when you choose get the crowd involved and let them vote, you need to be ready and willing to let their votes count, otherwise you’ll destroy trust (and even brand equity). If you choose to engage the crowd in a public way you need to use their input, otherwise you’ll suffer very public consequences. If you’re looking for a higher level of quality in your submissions from a large number of people, consider using a more expert crowd instead (Innocentive, Hypios, Idea Connection, Nine Sigma, 99 Designs, TopCoder, etc.).

And last, but probably most important in my mind is that you need to walk the experience and look for potholes. The Marketshift Strategies folks definitely fell down on the job here. There were far too many barriers to participation in this contest, very little strategic integration, they should have anticipated the gaming of the system and written the rules better, and they should have actually followed their rules and the spirit of the contest a little better so that the people who didn’t game the contest and instead legitimately gathered votes were rewarded. The good thing is that without examples to dissect of how not to do social media, we wouldn’t all be able to learn how to use this powerful but dangerous tool in our innovator’s and marketer’s toolbox.

Build a Common Language of Innovation

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Every 60 Seconds Amazing Things Happen on the Internet

I found a couple of great infographics over on BusinessInsider that you’ll find below.

They highlight some truly astounding activity numbers from what happens in the world of technology and on the Internet.

Did you know that in a single minute there are over 168 million emails are sent? That’s just one example of the mind blowing online activity that takes place every sixty seconds.

Here are some of the other amazing things that happen in 60 seconds (click to enlarge):

Every 60 Seconds Amazing Things Happen on the Internet

Every 60 Seconds Amazing Things Happen on the Internet

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Twelve Days of Innovation

Twelve Days of InnovationAs we are now in the middle of the Twelve Days of Christmas, I thought it might be fun to do a post from the innovator’s perspective of the kinds of gifts that might mean the most to an innovator during the holidays when it comes to their quest for innovation excellence. The song however does get quite repetitive so instead of running through it in song format, let’s look at the Twelve Days of Innovation as a list:

1. On the first day of Innovation, my CEO gave to me – Top Level Support for Innovation

There is no doubt that whatever the Chief Executive takes the time to talk about (repeatedly) and measure, is what people focus on and support in the organization. Having the CEO or even the whole top level of management talking about the importance of innovation by itself isn’t of course enough to make innovation happen. When we talk about Top Level Support, it may include the top level talking about their support for innovation, but it is more important that they show their support for innovation by giving the innovation efforts of the company a voice and making resources available to support them and in some cases even measuring and rewarding the level of innovation contribution of the staff in order to make it go.

2. On the second day of Innovation, my CEO gave to me – A Common Language of Innovation

What is your definition of innovation? We all have one, and they are all different. If your company hasn’t taken the time to define what innovation means in your organization or to lay out how you are going to talk about innovation internally and externally, and captured somewhere what kinds of innovation you’re after, then exactly what kind of innovation do you expect to get?

3. On the third day of Innovation, my CEO gave to me – A Chief Innovation Officer

While top-level support is crucial, it definitely helps to have someone in charge of organizing the innovation efforts of the organization. A Chief Innovation Officer (CIO) or VP of Innovation or Innovation Director or whatever you choose to call them is not responsible for coming up with all of the innovations for a company, but instead helps to organize and own things like the common language acquired on the second day, and the gift coming next on the fourth day. In short the CIO manages the process and acts as a facilitator to help put the right innovation resources against the right innovation projects.

4. On the fourth day of Innovation, my CEO gave to me – Separate Funding for Innovation Projects

If you try and fund innovation projects from within existing budget categories, usually you will end up only with incremental, product-group specific innovations. Having separate funding for innovation means that you can fund the promising innovation projects that your organization identifies and that you can be more strategic about the kinds of innovation projects that you fund. It also allows you fund the gift coming next on the fifth day.

5. On the fifth day of Innovation, my CEO gave to me – A Balanced Innovation Portfolio

The innovation needs of any organization are diverse, and that is what makes a balanced innovation portfolio so important. If you received enough dedicated innovation funding on the fourth day, you’ll have no trouble putting together a balanced innovation portfolio of innovation projects focused on a variety of innovation types, projects with different risk profiles and time horizons. A balanced innovation portfolio will allow you to manage risk and ensure that you always have innovations ready to launch.

6. On the sixth day of Innovation, my CEO gave to me – Access to Customer Insights

In the innovation diatribes of many authors they talk about the importance of engaging your employees in your innovation efforts while also talking about the importance of understanding the customer and trying to discover unmet customer needs when trying to come up with new innovations. The problem is that most organizations don’t share their customer insight or voice of the customer information beyond their market researchers, product managers, and possibly a handful of executives. The problem? Successful innovations are often deeply linked to a novel or reinterpreted customer insight. How can employees maximize their innovation contributions if they don’t have access to customer insight information? Organizations that help their employees better understand the organization’s customers stand to accelerate their innovation efforts. Just do it.

7. On the seventh day of Innovation, my CEO gave to me – A Global Sensing Network

Innovation insights and ideas can come from anywhere. So, if you’re only looking in a few different places and asking a handful of people, how can you possibly maximize your innovation efforts? The solution is to build a Global Sensing Network. The purpose of a Global Sensing Network is to allow an organization to collect and connect the partial insights and ideas that will form the basis of the organization’s next generation of customer solutions. This involves collecting and connecting customer insights, core tech trends, adjacent tech trends, distant tech trends, local social mutations, expert communities, and more. To actually build a Global Sensing Network you need to start from the inside out. You have to take a look around inside your organization and see what employees you have, what natural connections they have, and where they are currently located on the globe. This will get you off to a good start – I can help you if you would like – but this article can help too.

8. On the eighth day of Innovation, my CEO gave to me – An External Talent Strategy

Does your organization want to increase its speed to market? Is innovation on the minds of your leadership? Does management insist that the smartest people in the world work for your organization? Or, do they acknowledge that there are more smart people outside your four walls than inside? The truth is that the nature of the organization is changing from a talent ownership mindset to a talent attraction mindset. We now do business in an integrated, global economy with an interconnected web of suppliers and distribution channels where having a partner of choice mentality will be increasingly important. We also live in a world where in the near future the most valuable employees will be those that not only good work, but also who serve as a force multiplier for their organizations by being good at organizing the efforts of others who don’t even work for the company. As an organization you’ll want to evolve to a place where ideally, even those who don’t work FOR you, want to work WITH you. This will require that organizations craft an external talent strategy to maximize not only the productivity of their employees on their payroll, but also to accelerate their innovation efforts. A link to the free webinar I did with Innocentive on this topic is coming soon, along with a white paper on the subject in early January.

9. On the ninth day of Innovation, my CEO gave to me – More Tolerance for Risk and Failure

When I speak at corporate events and conferences around the world with innovation practitioners trying to champion innovation in their organization and do the hard work in the trenches, I often hear the comment that their organization struggles to innovate because the culture of the organization is risk averse, or even worse, failures are punished so severely nobody wants to do anything risky or innovative. This is a leadership and a management problem that requires the gifts from the first, fourth and fifth days because the fact is that some of your innovation projects will fail and ideally you want to have a balanced portfolio of innovation projects that sit outside the business units and product groups so that the eventuality of this is acceptable and manageable. AND, at the same time it is also equally important that you work to establish a culture where people do not obsess on their fear of failure or the risk they are taking but instead on how fast they are learning – from both successes and failure. When learning balances failure and when portfolios manage risk, you’ll create more room for innovation.

10. On the tenth day of Innovation, my CEO gave to me – A Flexible, Adaptable Organization

If there are two characteristics that should be at the top of any wish list of organization capabilities besides innovation – flexibility and adaptability should be in the running for the top two spots. Flexibility and adaptability are not the same thing. A flexible organization is able to move resources from where they normally sit in the organization to where they are needed most in the organization at any one time. An adaptable organization is capable of quickly adapting to changes in the marketplace based on changes in the competitive structure of the industry, changing customer preferences, or a myriad of other changes that require the organization’s strategy, policies, processes, and even structure to change to better serve their profitable customers. Think Nokia moving from making tires to making mobile phones, think about Amazon switching from being a traditional e-tailer to welcoming third-party sellers onto the site and starting a cloud services business. Flexible, adaptable organizations are capable of surviving massive marketplace shifts caused by innovation. Flexible and adaptable employees capable of coping with all of the change required by flexible, adaptable, innovative organizations will be in high demand in the 21st century.

11. On the eleventh day of Innovation, my CEO gave to me – A Long-Term Commitment to Innovation

It’s great that the CEO threw you a bone on day one and gave you some top-level support for innovation, but unless your organization is willing to make a long-term commitment to innovation at all levels, and continually work to put the common language, training, policies, processes, and funding in place to sustain your innovation efforts, you won’t be successful. A long-term commitment to innovation is required. One that will survive a few failed innovation efforts (that of course yield a lot of learning), and a few defections of top talent to other organizations as you build out your innovation programs (innovation talent will be highly desired by other organizations after all). Over the long haul, you must as an organization work to embed innovation capability across the organization and not only use your efforts to produce new innovations but to also innovate your innovation efforts themselves if you want to pursue innovation excellence and make innovation a deep capability of the organization. Innovation is a marathon, not a sprint.

12. On the twelfth day of Innovation, my CEO gave to me – Idea and Insight Management Software

And finally, if you want to engage your employees, or eventually your partners, suppliers, customers, or even the general public in your future innovation efforts, you are going to need to have a system for gathering ideas and tracking their progress through the evaluation and execution phases of innovation. But at the same time you should also look at how you gather and share your customer insights and evaluate whether you need a system to manage that important resource as well. Don’t let great insights or ideas fall through the cracks because someone misplaced them.

Conclusion

Of course there are more ingredients necessary for making innovation a deep sustainable, renewable capability of the organization, but for the innovator in our song, these would be a great start. Innovation is hard work, and the organizations that invest in deepening their innovation abilities AND capabilities will over time be more successful than those that don’t. Building a strong innovation effort takes time and dedication, so if you’ve already started – keep pushing! And if you haven’t started yet, what are you waiting for?

I hope you all have a great finish to the holiday season and a prosperous start to the new year!

Build a Common Language of Innovation

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

The Geoffrey Moore Interview – Escape Velocity

The Geoffrey Moore Interview – ‘Escape Velocity’

I had the opportunity recently to interview Geoffrey A Moore, the best-selling author of such popular books as Crossing the Chasm, Inside the Tornado, The Gorilla Game and Dealing with Darwin. He has a new book out called Escape Velocity: Free Your Company’s Future from the Pull of the Past and having had some of his books on the Innovation Excellence Reading List for a while I thought it made sense to sit down and pose him some questions to get some of his latest perspectives, thoughts and insights on innovation.

Here is the text from the interview:

1. When it comes to innovation, what is the biggest challenge that you see organizations facing?

The biggest challenge is understanding that they are three types of return on innovation which are largely incompatible with one another, and the importance therefore of declaring which type of return you are seeking. The first type is differentiation innovation, and that’s one everyone understands. But the key there is to be “beyond compare” so that you capture your returns in bargaining power. The second type is neutralization innovation, where the focus is on meeting all the performance standards of your category, to make sure you do not get eliminated from consideration or lose your customers to churn because of some dissatisfiers in your offer set. And the third type is productivity innovation, where the return comes from eliminating waste, ideally to repurpose resources for one of the other two types of innovation. Most people associate innovation only with the first type, which unfortunately is relatively hard to achieve. The other two types represent lots of low hanging fruit that people neglect.

2. In ‘Dealing with Darwin’ you identified 13 different types of innovation. Which is the most difficult for companies? Which presents the most opportunity?

Each type of innovation has its strengths and weaknesses, so choosing a focus is a lot about where your category is in its life cycle and what kind of crown jewels you can bring to the table. In the age of the Internet, marketing innovation has been a real challenge, as the old models of marketing do not apply very well and the new ones are still being developed. On the other hand, also because of the Internet, business model innovation has never been easier.

3. What is the biggest obstacle to generating future growth within an established enterprise?

Established enterprises struggle whenever they are required to reallocate resources away from established lines of business in order to fund the growth of new lines of business. The period of greatest pain is when the new business is big enough to demand a material amount of resource but not yet big enough to create a material return. Management teams are continually under pressure to raise the performance bar every quarter, and this makes it increasingly painful for them to invest in the future. But eventually this policy leads to a future state where the cupboard is bare and the company is in real trouble.

4. Tell us about the importance of reallocating resources across an enterprise in deliberately asymmetrical ways

One of the ways enterprises waste their innovation resources is by “peanut-buttering” them across way to many initiatives in way too many areas of the business. It is much more effective to concentrate on a few must-win bets, even when that means some areas get no additional funding whatsoever. This is not a popular decision, which is why peanut-buttering is so common. Unfortunately, however, it is a sure path to a slow death.

5. Why is it important to be swift to neutralize competitors’ innovations and to be laser-focused on driving in-house innovations?

Neutralization innovation ensures you keep up with your industry’s changing norms. The key here is to be “good enough, quick enough,” conserving both on the level investment (don’t go any further than the norm requires) nor taking a second longer (every second you are out of compliance with the norm gives your competitors a license to poach on your turf). The laser-focus is all about spending just the right amount of resources here, as opposed to with differentiation innovation, where the rule is to spend whatever it takes. Needless to say, you cannot do a lot of differentiation innovation, so laser focus there includes keeping discipline as to what projects get this tag.

6. What do you feel is the most important takeaway from your new book ‘Escape Velocity’?

Contemporary management protocols and practices overweight a focus on performance and underweight a focus on power. The primary purpose of this book is to rectify the balance by creating a vocabulary and a context for addressing the current and future state of power of your enterprise, and driving innovation initiatives to ensure that power is replenished instead of exhausted. Too often the latter occurs, which ends with the demise of the enterprise.

7. What skills do you believe that managers need to acquire to succeed in an innovation-led organization?

We make a big distinction between leadership and management because success depends both on making the bets needed to create future power (leadership) and converting those positions of power into economic returns to reward the current bet’s investment and to fund the next series of bets (management). Contemporary financial markets are very pro-management and anti-leader because they have disconnected themselves from long-term returns. This creates a fundamental imbalance in the politics of governance which is driving established enterprises to marginalize themselves along a path of quiet self-liquidation. It is critical that boards of directors retake the reins here and reassert a more healthy balance between long and short term, which in turns involves taking strong leadership positions.

8. If you were to change one thing about our educational system to better prepare students to contribute in the innovation workforce of tomorrow, what would it be?

Compared to the rest of the world we have a great educational system—really, better than any other—for the elite. That’s because our system really does encourage students to take risk, explore views, etc. in ways that no other system does. Our huge challenge is that this system does not scale to the entirety of our population, and all attempts to scale it have actually made overall results worse, not better. So we have a real conundrum here. Our crown jewels are not aligned with our social values, and the most probable outcome of that is that we will try to destroy our crown jewels. Needless to say, we need to find a better path forward than that.

Build a Common Language of Innovation

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Harnessing the Global Talent Pool to Accelerate Innovation

FREE Innocentive Webinar on December 13, 2011 at 2PM EST

Harnessing the Global Talent Pool to Accelerate InnovationAs more industries become commoditized and innovation becomes more of a focus, organizations are being forced to move beyond a talent ownership mindset to a talent attraction and engagement mindset.

In this webinar, we will explore how organizations can utilize open innovation and crowdsourcing resources as an essential talent management strategy to harness the growing numbers of retired scientists, unemployed experts, and underemployed talent around the world to generate ideas, solve problems, and further the goals of the business. The webinar will also explore how individuals can bolster their incomes and credentials by participating in open competitive challenges.

Three things you’ll learn:

1. Why having an external talent network strategy is becoming increasingly important
2. How leading organization manage their open innovation and crowdsourcing efforts
3. Strategies for attracting and engaging talent to your organization’s innovation efforts

Register for this FREE Webinar

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.