GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

There’s an interesting new survey out from Newsweek about innovation. The survey compares the attitudes and expectations about the US and China in regard to innovation. In the survey there are some relatively unexpected differences and some safe assumptions and conclusions drawn.

On the safe side, it’s not surprising that a majority of people in the US and China believe innovation will be even more important in the next few decades than now. Most people understand the increasing rate of change and the need for new products and services to meet both growing consumer demands and the increasing constraints placed on our consumption. We need both new products and services and new solutions to growing demands for more energy and a cleaner planet. The survey also shows that we in the US have less respect for our innovation capabilities than the Chinese population does. In the survey we consistently underestimate our capabilities, or the Chinese are overestimating us.

But what was really interesting to me was presented in the middle and toward the end of the survey. The first item that caught my attention was this question: What are the factors that you believe are causing the US to fall behind China from an innovation perspective?

The answers were: Schools lagging in math and science education (42%), American government not doing enough to support innovation (17%), American business not investing enough in innovation (16%), Don’t know (14%) and American workers lacking skills to be technologically innovative (11%). According to this survey, then, we in the US are slipping behind because our (1) education system is failing to create innovative, creative workers or (2) our government isn’t doing enough to support innovation or (3) businesses aren’t investing in their workers or innovation.

What incentives did the government create or offer to Google to become the dominant and most innovative search engine? College dropouts created Napster, which was used as a model to disrupt the entire music distribution business. My concerns are that too often we sit passively by waiting for some permission or some program which will allow us to innovate, rather than simply taking the initiative. Waiting for the government to select the “best” technologies or waiting for the educational system to do a better job educating is not an answer. Yes, we need better education systems but we need them to turn out creative, insightful people, not just engineers and scientists. Innovation has so many possibilities and facets that turning out more scientists and engineers isn’t necessarily going to make the US more innovative.

Let’s reinforce this point using the next slide in the presentation. The title of the slide is American and Chinese parents disagree about which skills their children will need to drive innovation. The first two categories sum it up.

American families favor more science and technology education for their kids (American families chose this option 52% of the time, Chinese parents 9%) while Chinese parents chose creative approaches to problem solving (American families chose this option 18% of the time while Chinese parents chose this option 45% of the time). We in the US are far too fixated on science and technology as a driver for new product creation, when in fact too often the engineers and scientists in an organization can act as a block or barrier to innovation, since they are too focused on what’s feasible, functional and practical. We, in the US and in China, need to educate our children and our workers on creative problem solving skills, to have them reach beyond the obvious to attain new ideas for new products, services and capabilities. One thing I think we can safely assume is that there will be an enormous number of scientists and engineers worldwide. No country or firm will corner the market on those skills. However, the number of people who are truly gifted at thinking creatively and solving difficult problems and challenges is far smaller. Let’s corner the market on those skills and then find the people necessary to build and deliver the physical products and services.

We run the risk of expecting innovation to be driven by a government bureaucracy or waiting for specific dictates from government or businesses as to the “chosen” technologies or industries. What we need is more initiative from every sector. We need to improve education and educational opportunities for our children and demand more depth and breadth in their education, not just focusing on more math and science but also more creative and dynamic thinking to help them solve new and thornier problems. We need to increase the training for our existing workforce to shift their skills to new types of work and opportunities. But we can’t wait for permission and we can’t expect a behemoth of a federal government to make the right selections. What we can hope for is that it creates an environment where innovation and creativity can flourish.

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

I love those truisms that people use to describe a situation. Strangely they are usually based on obvious failures, but perhaps it’s simply easier to teach people based on failure than success. Some relatively well-known truisms include:

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink
You can’t push a string uphill
Time waits for no man

I’d like to add one about innovation. While we like to say that everyone can innovate, its probably also safe to say that

You can’t force a disinterested person to innovate

Now, to me, a person who loves change and new ideas, I can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t leap at the chance to participate in innovation. Sign me up! But I’ve discovered that while “everyone” can be innovative, many people usually aren’t, and there are several good reasons for that. Understanding the reasons, and identifying the people who can or will overcome the barriers, will make your innovation effort more successful.

The first reason some people can’t or won’t innovate is that they don’t understand what innovation has to do with them. They simply can’t imagine doing their work any differently, and if they did innovate, they might have to learn a new way of doing things. They either can’t, or won’t imagine the possibility of doing things in a new or different way. These folks aren’t resistant to innovation per se, they are resistant to CHANGE.

The second reason some people can’t or won’t innovate is that they don’t believe they’ll have the opportunity, or permission, or time. They are willing to project a new future and to try to change, but believe that nothing will change, or that if they have good ideas they’ll just be shot down. These folks have good imaginations and are willing to exercise them. They aren’t resistant to innovation, they are RESIGNED to the current state or believe it can’t be changed.

The third reason some people can’t or won’t innovate is that they don’t want the extra work involved. They are perfectly comfortable punching a clock for eight hours and going home on time. They can see the opportunities for change and innovation, but don’t want to have to do anything extra. They aren’t resistant to innovation, they simply expect to PUNCH THE CLOCK and don’t want any extra work.

The fourth reason some people can’t or won’t innovate is that they have been infected with a negative perspective or bias. They can recognize the possibilities for innovation but believe that their firm “won’t listen” or shoot down their own ideas or the ideas of others too quickly. Just like a the barrel of crabs pulls down any crab that tries to escape, these folks use their negative mojo to shut down any innovation effort. They aren’t necessarily resistant to innovation, they are simply NEGATIVE about anything new or different.

OK, so if you weed out these individuals from your organization, then hopefully what’s left are the open-minded, the engaged, the change agents and the naive, and that’s the perfect blend for innovation. Innovation is going to require change, since it will introduce new products, services or business models. It will require open minded people who can and will think differently. It will require the naive who don’t yet know what “can’t” be done. And it will require the people who are most engaged who will be willing to make the changes and do the extra work required to make innovation succeed.

This is why we try to staff all innovation efforts with volunteers. People who will volunteer for a difficult project that requires change see the opportunities and want to accomplish them, regardless of the obstacles and barriers, and are willing to do the extra work. Conversely, people who have been conscripted to innovation work are likely to doubt it can happen and abandon the effort at the first sign of resistance, or simply wait for permission.

Perhaps the easiest way to kill an innovation project is to staff it with people who don’t believe it will be successful, aren’t willing to effect change and who are content to wait passively for permission to proceed.

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

Do you remember the annual Christmas special about the island of misfit toys, where Rudolph ends up because he doesn’t “fit in” with the other reindeer? The island is full of misfit toys that weren’t acceptable for one reason or another.

A recent Accenture study on innovation found that there must be a mythical land of misfit ideas. Executives who were surveyed for the innovation study said that “opportunities to exploit underdeveloped areas/markets often die because they can never find a home to nurture them.” Less than 15% of the executives surveyed disagreed with this statement. In other words, organizations can generate good ideas that are relevant to specific opportunities, but fail to find business lines or leaders who will adopt and nurture those ideas. So, those ideas must end up somewhere – our land of misfit ideas.

There are several reasons why good ideas aren’t adopted and nurtured. In our experience I think I’d boil it down to three predominant reasons: prioritization, ownership and fear.

By prioritization I mean that a product or service development team within a line of business typically has more work than it can effectively complete. Even a very compelling idea that is generated and has merit must find its place in the priority stack. Often it is much easier to simply slip that “great new” idea at the bottom of the stack rather than reprioritize the work, so the opportunity slips by and little is done to advance the idea.

By ownership I mean that good ideas that are generated outside of a business line are often looked at with suspicion. Even if the idea is a good one and solves a significant problem, a business unit leader may think that since his or her team didn’t generate the idea, they have little stake in the idea, or the idea may cannibalize the existing products and services. So a good idea is rejected or ignored.

By fear I mean that an idea may have great value but be so radical that implementing it will create significant change. In many organizations change is feared rather than embraced, and for some reason it is better to be forced to change through the actions of a competitor (reactive) than to create change and disrupt others (proactive). Since most firms reward consistency and reaction rather than change and proactive disruption, many new ideas will never see the light of day.

Perhaps what’s needed is “local” innovation in a product or service line that is safe and relatively incremental, and “global” or corporate innovation that is relatively radical and disruptive. The challenge in this regard is moving the good idea from those who don’t have the responsibility to develop the concept as a product or service to those that do, unless we simply spin off new product groups or businesses based on the radical ideas, rather than trying to force them into the existing businesses.

Otherwise many of the best ideas in your organization will end up on the island of misfit ideas, waiting for someone else to come along and discover them. Then, those ideas get released and implemented with a fury on those who ignored them initially.

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

Imagine if you will, somewhere in the distant recesses of our existence, a group of cavemen huddled around a fire. The wiseman of the group gathers the tribe around the fire and regales them with stories of their ancestors – how they fought the neighboring tribes, how they found the food necessary to survive. The shaman passes on the wisdom of the tribe, and teaches in the process.

Stories are the best way to learn, and the best way to communicate. For some reason, we’ve lost the sense of story in business. Rather than use stories we opt for hard and fast “facts” that often miss the root causes or issues. There’s no story telling class in an MBA program, yet most of the best leaders understand the importance of storytelling, and they lead others by telling and retelling stories. Some of those stories are myths, meant to reinforce the culture. Some of those stories are true, meant to teach and instruct.

I’ve just had the opportunity to read Michael Margolis’ new book “Believe Me“, which he calls a “storytelling manifesto for change makers and innovators”. It is a small, slim book with a lot of good ideas about why story matters and how to reclaim it.

What strikes me about stories in regard to innovation is how little emphasis we place on a story or a narrative. Too often an innovation project is created, but there’s no linkage to past work or existing issues. The project seems to exist outside of the framework of the business, and doesn’t have a strong linkage or narrative to drive it. Margolis identifies 15 storytelling axioms and notes that storytelling is especially important to innovators. There are a few axioms I’d like to point out:

1. If you want to learn about a culture, listen to its stories. If you want to change a culture, change the stories. I’ve found that culture is always a barrier to innovation, so changing a culture is important when innovating. Identifying the stories and changing the stories will make innovation more acceptable.
2. The power of a story grows exponentially as more people accept your story as the truth. This axiom played out for us on an innovation project, when we introduced qualitative research to a firm that had not used ethnography successfully before. Our story about our findings and the value of our findings spread through word of mouth and created an entirely new perspective on the use of ethnography.
3. Storytelling is like fortune-telling. The act of choosing a certain story determines the probability of future outcomes. If we choose a story line that we are a simple, safe, slow moving company then that informs the culture and defines who and what we are. If we choose a story line that defines our organization as a risk taking, insightful innovator, that’s what we can become. Your story drives your results.

As an innovator, I’d like to start with the story, which will drive the culture to adapt to a new view of itself, and anchor the work within a narrative that we can spread through word of mouth to others. There’s a need for a formal communication network, but powerful stories, repeated throughout the organization, do far more to get people on board.

Check out Michael’s new book and think about what your story says about your organization, and how you can use story to your advantage.

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

I guess I’ll never fully understand the depth of concern that many management teams have around command and control, especially in an era of constant change. It seems that the more demands are placed on an organization to create new products and adapt to environmental change, the more resistance to that change is created and encouraged at mid and senior management levels. I understand that what’s “known” is comfortable and what’s unknown and new is uncomfortable, but at some point every firm has to create some new products or services or it will simply atrophy.

Recently I’ve witnessed what I’ll call “innovation in a bottle”. That is, a relatively successful innovation effort that the management team approved and blessed spawned interest in innovation across the organization. People in other business units and geographies wanted to know more, and learn more, about innovation and the successful work that was done. We on the project team viewed this as a good thing – a successful innovation effort being recognized as such. It was clear that many people wanted to understand the tools and process, and implement that kind of thinking in their lines of business.

Except that the management team viewed all of that energy and excitement with concern. Why was everyone so excited? Why was everyone so interested in innovation? Yes, the recently completed project had created very valuable insights and compelling new products and services, but the intent was for that group only. I think, in hindsight, that the management team intended not for a widespread innovation effort for the firm, but a more narrowly targeted new product discovery effort for one line of business. When that effort succeeded, and other lines of business wanted to learn more and duplicate the effort, the genie was at risk of leaving the bottle, and that caused concern for the management team. After all, if several lines of business started innovating, the amount of change in the business could be dramatic.

I don’t think most firms can be successful keeping innovation in a bottle – limiting it to very specific product lines or geographies. If the innovation work is done well, it will produce great results and those results will be noticed. Leaders in other organizations will want to copy the work and develop new products and services for their customers. Successful innovation is contagious, and to think the management team can limit innovation is part and parcel with command and control thinking. Yes, an executive team can control innovation, by limiting resources and stopping projects, but once the value of the methods and tools are seen, it will be hard to keep that lightning in a bottle. And probably counterproductive to do it as well.

Here’s the takeaway: If your firm seeks innovation and is willing to commit to do it well, expect that with any successful effort that more and more people within the firm will want to learn more and duplicate the work in their own departments. This should be a good thing, but can be viewed negatively by an executive team worried about control. What they don’t recognize is how fast the world is changing and how great the demand is for new products and services. I don’t think you can keep innovation in a bottle, and I doubt it’s a good idea to try.

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

Over the last six or seven years, definitely since about 2003 or 2004, there has been an increased focus on innovation in many businesses. I think much of this was driven by several factors, including an increased rate of change in competition, especially the growing capabilities of India and China. I also think that information costs have fallen as the web has become more fully adopted, and consumers are demanding more. Finally, I think the focus on cost-cutting and outsourcing is reaching it’s logical conclusion. Most of the things that could be cut, trimmed or outsourced have been. Many businesses in the US are relatively lean, and need to return to growth and differentiation.

All of these factors contribute to the need for innovation. However, there are a lot of trends that suggest innovation is important in the near future as well. The focus on global warming means new technologies are required to reduce emissions. In the US, health care reform will mean new demands on an antiquated health care system. The US Government is straining to provide services that the population expects and demands. The banking sector is ripe for change and disruption. All of these factors suggest a significant amount of change is in store for our government and for major businesses.

None of this is going unnoticed in the hallowed halls of major corporations. Booz and Company has just released its yearly Innovation survey, and more than ever, innovation is moving from an interesting sideshow in most organizations. Now, innovation is being recognized as offering a competitive advantage, perhaps one of the few sustainable advantages, and CEOs and executives are taking note. The survey points out that over 90% of the executives surveyed said innovation was critical to the success of their firms as they prepared for the market and economy to improve. One executive went so far as to say “the recession was a catalyst for increased innovation”.

Booz and Company listed three reasons why they felt companies have continued to invest in innovation during the economic downturn:

1. Innovation is becoming a core component of overall corporate strategy
2. Recognition that product development cycles are longer than recessionary periods
3. Many see the recession as an opportunity to build advantages over their
   competitors

One of the biggest impediments to innovation continues to be the “constraints of the product development lifecycle”. The product development life cycle in many industries is simply too long and too cumbersome, and any opportunity to shorten the development life cycle could mean real rewards. Conversely, any slacking off could mean falling behind the competition.

My take: Innovation is gradually moving from an occasionally interesting sideshow that is not focused and not strategic, to becoming a key focus of senior executives as they realize that only innovation can help the firm continually grow and differentiate. Innovation is rapidly becoming a capability or enabler that strengthens and focuses the corporate strategies, and should over time become a key enabler to many corporate goals and strategies. Once more firms create a continuous capability for innovation and modify their cultures to embrace innovation, then we’ll see the real transition occur. It is heartening to see that more and more firms are placing more emphasis on innovation at a strategic level.

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

I’ve read several books about innovation, and am reading another which I’ll review shortly here on the blog, which talk about the importance of combining disparate skills or capabilities when innovating, or holding two diametrically opposing ideas and finding the happy medium. What should be obvious is that one of the most important skills from an innovation perspective is the act and insight of synthesis.

This is a real challenge, because most people are taught to break down problems into smaller, finite pieces and solve the smaller problems. We also work as specialists, with deep understanding of our core capabilities and knowledge, but often with little insights or knowledge beyond our education or jobs. So most people don’t use synthesis skills on a regular basis, and are probably prone to avoiding synthesis since synthesis requires introducing a number of new and possibly unknown factors which may simply make the problem larger and more difficult.

Well, to a certain extent that true. However, innovation often happens when we take a step back, look at the bigger picture and combine two concepts or technologies or ideas that are seemingly unrelated and create something completely new. And when you boil it all down, that is what synthesis is all about.

Synthesis happens in all phases of innovation, starting from the very beginning. We usually like to start a project by collecting trends and synthesizing or combining them to create new, alternative futures (or scenarios). Rather than simply focus on one trend, it is more interesting (and a bit more difficult) to combine three or four active trends and project them into a 7 to 10 year future. The synthesis, or combination of these trends helps create a view of the future which we can use to identify new opportunities or emerging threats.

Synthesis happens in customer research. We often will engage ethnography or voice of the customer work to discover customer needs and wants. Talking with a number of customers or observing behavior can lead to a range of insights. Synthesizing or combining these insights and seeking the common themes or threads is what is really valuable. Insights or needs from one customer is interesting, aggregating insights and understanding them from a range of customers is valuable.

It’s not at all unusual to use synthesis as a method to generate ideas. We can ask ourselves what would happen if we combined several capabilities or technologies, and what that combination would create. Clearly synthesis is a powerful tool in almost any phase of the innovation effort.

The way we generally use synthesis is almost always the same, however. Using synthesis requires a team to slow down, step back and look at a bigger picture – to gather more data and more disparate information or insights than may seem necessary. In many ways this may cloud the picture, but if your team is willing to do the extra work synthesizing the materials, or insights, then the results will be even better. Good innovators are synthesizers, and use synthesis techniques in all phases and stages of innovation. This fact is also one reason that many firms struggle to identify innovators – there are simply too few people who are good at synthesis and who use the tool regularly. As with any capability, misuse or lack of use causes the skill to atrophy. Perhaps one of the most important things you can do as an innovation leader is to find people who are comfortable with the approach or skill, or introduce it as a technique and train your teams on the approach.

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

This is the third of several ‘Innovation Perspectives‘ articles we will publish this week from multiple authors to get different perspectives on “What roles do engineers and marketers play in an innovation setting, and what conflicts can arise based on their perspectives and approaches?” Here is the next perspective in the series:

by Jeffrey Phillips

First, let me say that I am ably suited to answer this question, since I am both an engineer (undergraduate) and a marketer (graduate degree). I’ve worked in the technical trenches and, frankly, left them as quickly as possible, and worked in a number of marketing roles since my MBA. I left the engineering world because it necessarily demands a level of specificity and exactness that I find boring and tedious, and demands attention to detail that I sometimes lack.

So, let’s talk about engineers first. What traits are associated with engineers, and does their education, focus, attitudes and skills position them well for innovation? Most engineers I know are very interested in solving problems, which suggests they have a proclivity for innovation. However, the focus on getting to a solution quickly, and detailing a solution exactly, often hampers them from bigger picture or disruptive innovation. Engineers and accountants like things in black and white – no shades of gray. Innovation often happens and requires some ambiguity for success. Engineers like to build things, which again indicates a proclivity for innovation, especially prototyping. However, they are often more entranced by once concept or idea than they are the process, which narrows their thinking and focus too early. Good engineers can be excellent problem solvers, but don’t often think of themselves as “creative” and too often don’t have good understanding of market needs and trends.

The market needs, trends and opportunities should come from marketing, if the marketers are doing their job well. Unfortunately, as narrowly defined as many engineering jobs are, marketing suffers from the reverse – a too broad definition. Today marketing can mean public relations or PR, Marketing communications, trade show management, conferences and events, product management, social media and a host of other capabilities. Marketing has become too far flung, and to a certain extent has lost sight of the base purpose of marketing – to identify segments and customers who have needs, and understand how to fill those needs effectively. If marketers fill that function, then they are innovative in nature, because they want to know and understand customer needs. Too often marketers are more worried about the copy on a new ad, or who will be at a tradeshow, and they fail to understand customer needs and develop scenarios about the market of the future.

So, what often happens is that marketing is too distracted to do what should be it’s primary job – understand customers and develop potential product and service ideas. Engineering and product development shows up and doesn’t get much insight into actual customer needs, so the engineers go off to explore interesting new technologies that may, or may not, be important to customers. Neither, and both, are at fault.

Engineers should demand that marketers do a better job of defining near term customer needs and emerging customer requirements or markets. Without that insight, it is difficult to build interesting new products. Engineers on the other hand need to be more ready to engage the market with rough, fast prototypes, and work to an iterative model. If there is an issue in most firms, it’s that we all have become too far removed from the customer, and fail to understand their wants and needs.

In my mind, that’s marketing’s job, to discover the needs and translate them into specific opportunities for engineers to build.

You can check out all of the ‘Innovation Perspectives‘ articles from the different contributing authors on “What roles do engineers and marketers play in an innovation setting, and what conflicts can arise based on their perspectives and approaches?” by clicking the link in this sentence.

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

Ok, after a number of years and a range of clients, I’ve seen a lot of titles. Product Manager, Product Developer, Product Development Manager, etc. I’ve even seen titles like Innovation Manager and Ideator and some other more fanciful titles. These are all valid and important roles. But what is evident to me is that while we place great emphasis on maintaining the existing product and service lines, there’s almost never a person whose job it is to devise entirely new products and services. It’s as if we believe that all future growth will spring from existing products and services, and we won’t have to address new markets or new competitive threats, leave alone the opportunity to create a new “blue ocean”.

Run down the list of titles in your firm that have to do with product or service management or development. There will be a host of people who “manage” products or services. These individuals have a vital job to maintain the existing product or service line. They have detailed plans for several years out about product enhancements and new features. They keep the lights on and ensure the existing products and their incremental improvements are planned and released. Additionally there will be people with the title of Product Developer or Service Developer. Their job is to work with the product managers to ensure the product or service is built according to the identified needs and specifications. Again, a vital job focused on very near term opportunities.

Occasionally we’ll find a “New Product Development” or New Product Manager title in an organization. That role is probably closer to what we are advocating, but is still rooted in the near term. A new product or service developer or manager is still working under the constraints of the product or service mantra within the firm.

What most firms need, and sorely lack, are people whose full time job it is to identify new opportunities or markets and start shaping those opportunities into new products, services or business models that the firm can deliver. Existing and near term opportunities are important. They keep the lights on and the beast fed. But only rarely are they going to produce new, dramatic growth or differentiation. Innovation will spring from people who have longer term vision and are less tied to the day to day product or service delivery, and who are more interested in emerging opportunities or threats. In my experience, most product managers rarely read or interact outside of their own area of expertise, so the firm is constantly surprised when new products enter the market from unexpected quarters.

According to most CEOs, there’s little that’s more important than innovation, yet there are few if any defined roles in the organization who “own” it. It would do my heart good to see a few people with permanent responsibility to explore new markets and new opportunities. Perhaps we could call these individuals market or opportunity explorers. Naming them explorers gives them the right to investigate, explore and identify really dramatic new things and introduce them to the organization, which can then convert new opportunities into products and services. Most organizations have programs like Stage-Gate that do that part well. What’s missing is an intentional focus, and an assignment and role(s) that focus solely on the longer term innovation.

Yes, I know that Product Managers and Product Developers consider this work part of their job, but given the demands of the job and the relentless quarterly reporting, longer term, disruptive work gets pushed out constantly. Let’s have one or two people whose job it is – full time – to uncover and explore new opportunities and markets. You can’t manage a task without assigning someone to do it and measuring them and their results. You certainly can’t be successful over the long term when no one is actively responsible for this important work.

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

Thanks to Twitter, much of my research is done for me. I found a story linked on Twitter about the key innovation characteristics of leaders in innovative firms. That article was published by HBR.

The five attributes the authors identified as relevant for innovation are: associating (making connections across unrelated ideas or problems), questioning (especially focused on “what if” or “why not”), observation (especially observing behavior), experimentation (new experiences or exploration) and networking (especially with people from different industries or perspectives). Let’s assume these factors are correct – from my experience they appear to be. Then, let’s compare to what happens in many firms today.

First, there’s little association in most firms today. Most organizations aren’t interested in making connections across disparate fields of study; they are focused on maximizing the best practices within their industry. Rarely do we see ideas introduced from outside an industry unless it is introduced by an outsider.

Second, while there’s plenty of questioning, it is most often used to belittle or denigrate ideas, rather than build them up. The knee jerk reaction in most firms when a new idea is generated is to seek what’s wrong with the idea, rather than to build the idea or support it.

Third, the concept of observing customers or clients has been completely outsourced. Too few people spend time watching and observing customer behavior and trying to understand it. We’ve insulated ourselves from interaction and rely on cold, quantitative surveys. We often don’t understand our customers’ behavior or what that behavior means.

Fourth, there’s limited experimentation outside of an R&D lab. Gary Hamel pointed out in his book The Future of Management that most firms have some product or service experimentation, but never experiment with management practices. More to the point, the authors define experimentation as new experiences or exploration. For the vast majority of firms, management is content to stick to its knitting.

Fifth, the first line item cut in any downturn is travel and conferences, so we by definition limit the amount of networking that is possible. In fact, in many firms there is little interaction with competitors, and even less interaction with firms in adjacent industries or markets. Innovation often happens at the intersection of two seemingly disparate markets or businesses, yet we’ve managed to wall ourselves off from any interaction with others.

The point here is that most organizations actively work against many of the attributes that would define good innovators.

So, if you are seeking to build an innovation team, or hire people with a greater proclivity for innovation, perhaps you should ask the following questions:

1. Give us examples from your experience where you combined two concepts or capabilities from diverse situations or markets and created something completely new. Or, here’s a (lego block, lincoln log) and a (band-aid, scarf). Can you create three interesting, useful new concepts from these raw materials?
2. What’s your first reaction when someone offers up a new idea? If the response is to explore it further or build on it, ask for examples. Otherwise, next question.
3. How do you gain insight into what consumers want and need as new products and services? 1 point for reading in the industry, 3 points for reading outside the industry, 5 points for putting on the consumer hat and acting as a consumer, 7 points for actually watching and interviewing customers about their behavior
4. Give an example from your personal or professional life of something new you’ve taken on. Could be learning a new language, learning a musical instrument. Need evidence of the attempt, and persistence. Quitting after a week or so isn’t good enough.
5. Tell me how frequently you meet with people who aren’t in your industry or have very different experiences or perspectives than you do. Do you intentionally seek out these interactions?

How often do you think your HR team asks these questions? If you’ve built a successful innovation team, did you ask questions like these?

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