GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

The longer you hang around a subject, the more interesting the rumors and misperceptions. Innovation seems to spawn a number of fallacies, probably because it is very important, haphazardly performed and misunderstood by management. The combination of importance, carelessness and ignorance probably spawns a lot of fallacies. In fact, it sounds a lot like teen sex in a way.

One interesting new fallacy that seems to be making the rounds is that “open innovation” is easier and cheaper than innovation within the four walls of your organization. Open innovation can drive more ideas, and in many cases simply bypasses the bureaucracy and sloth of an organization to attract a number of people from outside the organization. In this manner open innovation can be faster, but it is not cheaper or less expensive, nor does it require fewer resources. Open innovation just shifts the costs from an innovation team, or R&D, to legal, IP and business development. If your legal, IP and business development teams have more bandwidth or lower cost than your innovation or R&D teams, perhaps this is a logical tradeoff. But don’t expect open innovation to dramatically reduce the cost of innovation.

Another fallacy we see quite often is the assumption that a firm can start, and stop, innovation programs as needed or at will. While other projects may start and stop easily enough, there’s enough barriers and roadblocks to make starting an innovation program difficult, and once halted almost impossible to start again. What’s the biggest concern about innovation programs from those who are assigned to do the work? That is is another management “flavor of the month” program and the executives aren’t serious. It is hard to start, and even harder to restart, an innovation project, and awfully easy to kill.

A third fallacy is that innovation can occur in a black box. While skunkworks can be successful, they compete for resources with other projects but can’t communicate the goals and aims of the project or effort. Thus, managers have to balance how to resource a project, and what benefits or results they’ll see from the innovation effort. Why would a manager provide resources to a black box project that potentially cannibalize his major product or service? We don’t cut our own throats in real life, and we certainly don’t do that at work. Skunkworks can work when fully resourced, all the way to product development, but innovation works best out in the open. The more visible an idea is, and the more scrutiny it receives within the comfortable confines of your organization, the more it will be shaped for the market.

The fourth fallacy is that really “good” people are important. Well, yes, people are important, but I’d rather have open-minded, collaborative volunteers than the smartest people who are assigned against their will. In fact, a good process and understanding of the tools and methods of innovation deployed by an “average” team will trump the best thinking of the best people who don’t leverage the methods and processes. Clearly, as an innovation team, we’ll take the best people we can get, but I’d prefer passion and the willingness to learn and use the innovation tools over people who think they already know the answer.

The fifth fallacy is that executives can demonstrate commitment by talking about innovation. Frankly, unless he or she is Walter Cronkite (a famous newsman for you younger set), executives don’t communicate well, and often leave their direct reports and the people under them translating what was meant. If you want successful innovation, have your executives SHOW UP and participate in the work, and comment on the work and its outcomes, not simply state the importance of innovation. NO ONE IN YOUR ORGANIZATION KNOWS WHAT YOU MEAN BY INNOVATION ANYWAY! Demonstrate, then talk about it, rather than simply exhorting.

The last fallacy I’ll talk about today is related to my recent post about new wine and old wineskins. You can’t ask people to think differently and challenge the status quo, while working within the status quo and using all the existing tools and methods. New thinking requires new tools, and the ability and permission to use those new tools. Nothing is more frustrating for a team than to be told to innovate on the sly, on their own time, using old tools and methods to generate radically new ideas. Never the twain shall meet. If you want new ideas from your people, then give them the time and the tools to create the new ideas. No, demand that they take the time necessary to learn the tools and use them effectively. Otherwise, just buy ideas from consultants and save your team the headache.

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

I’ve been thinking for a while about the perfect physical space for innovation. When we work with our clients we often are asked to help design a physical space for the team to work in. This should be a space that is open, colorful, inviting and really different from the regular work environment. The space needs to remind the people working there that when the teams are innovating, they need to be thinking differently than they do when in their day jobs. In a perfect world, there would not be such a separation of thinking, but until everyone is a perfect innovator, we’ll have to settle for great thinking spaces.

The spaces we’ve worked on and in are usually spare space the firm can afford to reconfigure, and are usually the typical Class A space, with bare gray walls and industrial strength carpet. Sometimes the walls have been painted interesting colors or someone has put posters or other graphics up on the wall. Typically the space is fairly open, to allow a lot of movement, with smaller breakout areas for team work. Most of these physical spaces are a good first step, but don’t really break out of the usual workspace – gray walls, cubicles, boring industrial feel.

After giving this some thought, I’m going to propose the best arrangement for an innovation space – a kitchen. Think about a kitchen and its properties. A kitchen is a place where you create delicious (hopefully) food from a wide range of ingredients following a methodology (recipes) and experimenting with new additives or flavors. Cooking is a good metaphor for innovation, because many of us follow a recipe to some extent, but we also experiment with different spices, flavorings or cooking styles. Experimentation is important, and having a number of different ingredients at hand is very valuable.

Also, at any party, where do people end up? In the kitchen, standing around, talking about the events of the day. A kitchen, because there’s food and drink available, is inviting. People tend to remain there, talking about the issues of the day. From an innovation perspective, that’s valuable. A wide range of people mixing together, exchanging ideas is a good building block for innovation. Additionally, kitchens are much less formal than a living room or sitting room, and invite people to interact. The fact that there are few comfy chairs in a kitchen encourages people to mill around. This ensures an exchange of ideas.

A kitchen also has all sorts of appliances, tools and utensils. These are the things that help prepare, mix and bake/broil/fry the food. Likewise, innovators need tools and techniques at hand in order to do their work effectively.

Another reason a kitchen, or some semblance of a kitchen would be an excellent jumping off point for an innovation space is because it would be so different, so unique from the rest of the working environment. A kitchen would be totally unexpected and offer people a very different environment in which to innovate, yet one that is potentially familiar and comfortable.

I can’t wait to test this out – I think a kitchen, surrounded by some work areas or breakout areas and white boards, would offer a team a chance to “cook up” (sorry, couldn’t resist) a whole range of new ideas. Clearly there needs to be some more traditional working space as well, but a kitchen, stocked not just with cooking utensils but tools for ideation, idea development and prototyping would form a unique site, ready for people to innovate. You could even staff the innovation site with personnel who are innovation coaches would could offer lessons on the methodologies, the tools and the practice of innovation, who could act as “executive chefs”.

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

This is the second of several ‘Innovation Perspectives‘ articles we will publish this week from multiple authors to get different perspectives on “Where should innovation reside?” On the heels of Steven Todd’s kickoff, here is another perspective:

by Jeffrey Phillips

Braden Kelley has asked a number of us to respond to the question “Who owns innovation and where does it live in an organization?” This is actually a question we are asked quite frequently by our clients. The answers are based on the strategic goals of the firm.

First, let’s consider who “owns” innovation. Many firms will argue that the CEO “owns” innovation, and they are correct, to a point. Anyone with any amount of experience working on innovation will tell you that an engaged, involved executive team is vital to success when innovating. However, a CEO simply doesn’t have the time or bandwidth to get involved in every decision and manage all the disparate teams and activities that are involved. A CEO needs to make clear strategies and declarations about innovation’s purpose, and ensure the work is conducted effectively and measured. OK, if the CEO doesn’t “own” innovation, who does? I’ve written before that larger firms may need a Chief Innovation Officer, but only if that role is accurately defined. Since innovation can happen anywhere in the organization at any time, we certainly don’t want to place all the emphasis on one person or team.

Our preferred model is an innovation team that sponsors innovation, defines the processes, methods, tools and language for the organization and works on disruptive or “white space” ideas. Just as there is one common chart of accounts or one standard purchasing process, we need to create common innovation tools and methods, and be able to roll up the results. This central innovation team can report to a CIO, but the team and the CIO bear only a portion of the innovation effort.

Clearly, a lot of innovation happens in product groups, geographies and lines of business. Establishing a central innovation team doesn’t relieve these groups of the requirement for innovation – quite the opposite. Defining a team that can offer methods, tools and services should accelerate innovation in each line of business or product group. These teams are closer to the customer and have a better understanding of customer needs. Unfortunately the business lines are also bound by a 90 day clock, which keeps their focus on quarterly results and not longer term growth. There’s a real need for innovation at this level, coupled with innovation at a level that is not so bound by quarterly results.

So, who owns innovation? The CEO should SPONSOR and ENCOURAGE innovation and MEASURE it regularly. A Chief Innovation Officer should build capabilities, methodologies and tool sets to enable innovation in the organization, and the individuals who head up business lines, product groups or geographies should build the expectation for innovation into their annual plans, and product incremental and occasional disruptive innovation. No one person can own the responsibility and capability for innovation, but a management team working together to a common goal can clearly establish the expectations, build the tools and set the plans to unleash the creativity their employees, partners and customers have.

Additionally, innovation needs to reside at every level of the organization. We’ve seen it proven that innovation driven from the top doesn’t work effectively, and innovation residing in just one product group or team creates an unbalanced organization. Every group, every team should be expected to innovate. It’s not the responsibility of one team or one manager, but every individual in every group.

You can check out all of the ‘Innovation Perspectives‘ articles from the different contributing authors on “Where should innovation reside?” 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

Many strategic challenges have a “chicken or egg” quandary. In the case of the chicke and the egg, which comes first? Clearly you can’t have a chicken if the chicken didn’t come from an egg. But you can’t have an egg if it didn’t come from a chicken. Quite a conundrum. Ranks up there with Schrodinger’s cat and other notable thought experiments.

The chicken and egg question has parallels in innovation, especially when firms consider how to get started. The dilemma the firms face is: do we work on creating an innovation culture before attempting innovation, or do we start with smaller, more tactical innovation activities that will allow us to build up innovation knowledge and experience that can be transferred to the culture? Here’s a couple of things to ponder while considering the tradeoffs.

First, anyone, anywhere can brainstorm or generate ideas. That does not make them “innovative” and one brainstorm is not necessarily repeatable or sustainable. However, that may be the best first step for many firms, only comfortable with small, trial steps. However, what many firms find once they’ve generated ideas is that there is no sustaining process or procedure for managing ideas, and the “day job” is more compelling. Cultural roadblocks often stymie further pursuit of ideas.

Second, building a culture is hard, but changing a culture is very difficult. In any existing firm, there are norms and expectations that have been built over time and reinforced in the way people work and how they are compensated. Changing a firm’s culture does not happen overnight, and many executives recognize this. So, there’s yet another rationale for trying a “quick and dirty” innovation project rather than trying to implement longer term change.

Third, building a culture of innovation requires a vision. You can’t simply wave a wand and expect the culture to change – it can change, but it must change based on some shared concepts and vision. Executives have to define a very clear rationale for the change and present the end state. This requires commitment and good communication skills over a long period of time. Again, since we manage today with a stopwatch rather than a calendar, time is of the essence, and quick wins are preferred to methodical changes.

So, in many cases we are left with two alternatives, neither of which seem to have positive outcomes. On one hand a firm can innovate with small projects and programs and attempt to overcome cultural issues as they arise. Often they will find that the culture doesn’t reward people who take risks and who propose programs that are different from the status quo. On the other hand, a firm can start working on the culture and begin changing the expectations before launching innovation programs, but this is time consuming and most executives don’t have the patience for such efforts.

Probably the best approach is to run the changes in parallel. Start working on cultural change while enacting a series of small innovation programs. Build on the successes and use any failures as opportunities to reinforce the cultural change. Expect that any effort to change the culture will take several years. However, if you can successfully influence the culture, the innovation possibilities are incredible. Culture is the biggest roadblock to innovation, but once overcome, it can be the stimulus and propulsion for innovation.

In the case of innovation activities versus innovation culture, don’t think of these as tradeoffs but as activities that should, probably must, be done simultaneously if you want to build a long term, successful innovation capability.

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

by Jeffrey Phillips

Recently there’s been a debate about why larger firms can’t innovate. Perhaps they are too comfortable. Perhaps they are too afraid to cannibalize their markets. Perhaps they are afraid of risk and uncertainty. Perhaps, Perhaps.

Or maybe they operate under a management model that rewards compliance and punishes creativity. Now I think we are getting to the crux of the problem.

I’ve had the opportunity recently to hear Gary Hamel speak and see Dan Pink’s new Ted Talk. Both are compelling, and somewhere between Hamel’s discussion about management innovation and Pink’s thoughts about compensation and incentives lies the real issue that challenges many larger, and especially entrenched, firms. We structure our organizations (Hamel) and reward structures (Pink) to reward consistency and compliance, when what we really need is experimentalism and creativity.

Think about it. Most of the management practices we follow are based on management models put in place by Taylor or others modelled after GM in the 30s and 40s. Many of the employees at that time were uneducated or undereducated and their value proposition was in labor. The goal of the organization was to send down management’s goals and break them down into work units for simple tasks. The goal of the organization was top down, consistency and compliance to orders and tasks. As Pink points out, the compensation models that accompanied that structure made sense as long as the tasks were simple and clear and can be executed following a very specific process.

Now, most of the work we do is knowledge work. It is difficult to place specific outlines or processes around the work, and can be difficult even to define the end products. If I can outsource a steel factory and make semiconductors overseas, the premium on labor and compliance is gone. What differentiates a firm in this environment is not compliance and control, but creativity and engagement. I need an organizational structure that attracts people to work on products or services they believe in, and are engaged in, and I need different compensation models. Pink talks about Autonomy (choice), Mastery and Purpose (engagement), the words in parenthesis being my interpretation.

So, many firms, especially older firms are built on hierarchical models that are top down and organized for compliance, not creativity. As I blogged earlier, they are well designed to meet the operating needs and realities of the mid 20th century, just as labor and compliance were becoming less of an issue as a management consideration. We have entered a completely different environment, which calls on organizations to be nimble, able to adjust rapidly, call on the best insights of all employees and create a meaningful relationship and experience with customers. Virtually none of those attributes are prevalent in older organizational models.

Many firms can’t innovate because their structures, processes and compensation models are rigidly organized for the work world of the 1950s and 1960s and haven’t shifted the organizational structures, processes and compensation models to reflect what’s necessary today. When a firm like P&G is heralded for taking ideas from its customers as if that is a novel concept or something no one else could foresee, or when WL Gore is held up constantly as a management icon because of its “Lord of the Flies” organizational and management approach, you can see that many theorists in academia and many executives in larger organizations can’t quite grasp the changes that are necessary for many businesses to innovate successfully.

It’s not the people, it’s not the “culture”, it’s not the compensation, it’s not the management hierarchy, it’s not the fear of risk or uncertainty that holds back most larger firms. It’s all of the above, and being willing to make a clean break with the past.

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

Recently a number of bloggers and Tweeters have linked to an interview with Greg Bialecki, who works for the governor of Massachusetts on economic development. The question posed to Bialecki was “What is the appropriate role for state government in accelerating innovation?”. Bialecki does a good job of straddling the many sides of the question, noting that many businesses are against more government involvement, since they believe it will lead to regulation and taxes, or favortism.

But the question is a good one. At any level of government, from a city to state or province to a federal or national government, what is the appropriate role for the government in an innovation policy or strategy? It seems to me to break down into three likely outcomes.

The first is based on the Apollo program. In this instance the government identifies a significant need or opportunity and challenges itself and industry to achieve it (put a man on the moon before the end of the decade). Note that the statement doesn’t dictate specific technologies or vendors. It is a challenge that created excitement and enthusiasm. Government agencies, private industry and other organizations then asked themselves – OK, if we are going to achieve this seemingly difficult mission, what is necessary for us to do? Then they went on to solve a number of engineering challenges and captured the attention of the nation. Thousands of kids (I’m one) wanted to become an astronaut because of the excitement and glamor. I think that this kind of effort – creating a challenge that engages all of the population – is one involvement in innovation that governments should have continuously. Right now, rather than creating a 1000 page health care plan, the government should set a specific goal and ask all of us to help achieve that. Perhaps the goal is universal coverage with no increase in healthcare outlays. We need big challenges to come together and overcome these hurdles.

This leads to the second possible government involvement – selecting preferred industries or technologies. Government involvement in selecting the “best” or preferred industries or technologies is fraught with hazard. Left to its own devices, the government that created ARPANET might still be monopolizing the ability to communicate and interact. Clearly any government with research facilities should be responsible for generating new research, but not selecting which technologies are approved or disapproved. Government involvement at that level and scale is bound to be tied up with political favoritism and will be showered on the largest and most powerful (see for example the GM bailout, or the bailout of larger banks).

The third kind of involvement is something rarely seen in the US outside of the Defense Department – a public/private partnership. The government could easily define specific issues or challenges it faces and create opportunities for innovation to address these specific issues. While this does occur on a limited basis today, the contracting rules and the size and influence of incumbents make it difficult for smaller firms or new entrants to compete. This means that many of the same old tired ideas and concepts are constantly recycled. If the Federal government could open itself up to more innovation around its biggest challenges, and invite a wide array of innovators and reduce the issues around contracting, it could create an entirely new innovation community which might significantly impact its ability to govern and its ability to deliver services. Secondarily to these outcomes would be the scaling of new ideas which could then flow back into the private sector. Thus, the government could be an incubator of ideas that eventually benefit the private sector. To a certain extent, this was true in the 40s, 50s and 60s, but as significant government research has dwindled, less innovation flows out of the government. We could easily turn the tables by asking the citizens and industries to respond to innovation challenges.

From my perspective, I don’t want to see any government picking industries or technologies. I do want the government to identify key challenges and needs, and bring together the best minds to create innovative solutions. Currently, one of the biggest stumbling blocks to innovating with, or for, any government is the bureaucratic hurdles involved in contracting, and the over-reliance on existing “beltway bandits” who have long incumbancy but little innovation incentive. Let’s open up the interactions, bring more people and firms into the innovation arena and have governments define the big challenges and turn the rest of us to work.

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

I was pondering recently why it can be so hard for a large firm to innovate successfully. Too often it seems we are trying to graft an innovation capability or process on top of existing teams and workflows. While these grafted processes can work effectively for a short time, while the white hot focus of management is felt, often these grafted processes wither and die if not constantly renewed and refreshed. Then it hit me. I’d just finished reading and reviewing “Design Driven Innovation” by Roberto Verganti. His thesis is that innovation should be driven, even led, by design. Innovation efforts often feel grafted on because the organization is working as it was designed to.

Many of my larger clients are Fortune 1000 firms that have well defined business teams and processes. After a round of Total Quality Management, Six Sigma and Lean in the 80s and 90s, these processes and workflows are well documented and highly efficient. Add to the fact that many firms have grown without adding headcount, and the processes are maxed out in terms of throughput and efficiency. There’s little more work that can be added. Now, attempt to introduce a concept or process that requires change, risk, failure and uncertainty, that seeks to “hit a home run” when all the other processes seek to hit consistent singles and doubles and never make an error (sorry about the baseball analogy). Not only does innovation violate the “designed” process, it adds new work that conflicts with existing standards and norms. Innovation efforts, in most cases, are added to a fully engaged workforce in opposition to existing standards and processes.

So, if many firms have difficulty innovating because of existing expectations and designed processes, is the opposite also true? Do firms that innovate successfully have well designed innovation programs that are part of the fabric of how they work? In general the answer is “yes” with the caveat that every innovator has its own methods and approaches. Apple, for example, innovates from the top down in a very structured process informed by user design and experience. WL Gore, on the other hand, innovates from the bottom up and from specific capabilities or technologies. P&G, as a third example, has shifted from a completely internal R&D organization to one that receives 50% of its ideas from outside. Talk about a significant change of design and process! Each of these firms is innovative, and each has a defined, designed process for innovation success, and each process or design is different.

What’s important to realize is that innovation can be designed into your organization, into the processes and expectations of the employees. Rather than “graft” on an innovation process, if your team seeks consistent innovation over time, seek to design in the innovation capability. Your innovation methods and process and how it impacts your organization can and will be unique to your firm. There are no “best practices” yet, and quite possibly there won’t be, as innovation means so many different things to so many different firms and people.

Rather than fight the existing systems to innovate, why not consider designing the innovation processes and methods into the structure of how the business works?

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

I grew up as one of those kids who was sort of good at a lot of sports but not really a master of any one sport. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve put considerably more time into biking, tennis and running, which leaves little time for the sport of business titans: golf. Now, I “play” golf at least four times a year, in a fund raising game or with friends and neighbors. I never practice and it shows. I cannot break 100 to save my life. I’m not familiar with any of the local courses and not familiar with my clubs (tools). I don’t expect to be successful when I play and I don’t take it too seriously. I uncork a nice drive every once in a while, or a good putt, but I don’t expect it to happen regularly. Mostly I am a very poor golfer who occasionally gets in a good shot, and that’s all I expect.

If you are still with me, then you must be thinking this is leading somewhere. If you’ve drawn that assumption, you are right. The comparison I want to make to my very part-time golf game is to the part-time efforts most firms put into innovation. If you want to be good at golf, you’ll get instruction, play frequently and learn the nuances. Similarly, if you want to be good at innovation, you’ll get instruction, work with a pro, learn the tools and use them repeatedly and constantly. Innovating occasionally is like golfing periodically. You may get in a few good shots, but you won’t be consistently successful.

As an innovation consultant we get calls several times a week from firms that want to conduct a brainstorming session or a scenario plan. These firms are interested in quick generation of ideas or insights and have no longer term plan, or want to “stick a toe in the water” and see how the initial engagement pans out. I understand that – no one wants to commit to a big investment if the initial effort won’t pan out.

However, almost all of these engagements are likely to be less than fully successful, since there is:

1. No longer term commitment to the effort
2. No real momentum for change
3. no consistency of intent or knowledge of tools

I always ask our clients – “OK, assuming we do the (brainstorm, scenario plan, training) – what’s next?” Usually there are vague assurances of more focus on innovation, but in many cases I have the sense that the effort is merely a “ticket punching” exercise, with no longer term commitment. It’s as if I showed up at St. Andrews, shanked the opening tee shot and decided, well, that’s it for me and golf.

If I want to be a good golfer, I need to take lessons and play regularly to gain insights and improve as a player. If I want to be innovative as a firm, I have to do things on a regular basis that grow my skills and demonstrate my intent. An occasional innovative project or task does not change the baseline capability, and often detracts from a larger intent or goal, since “everyone” knows that nothing will be done with the ideas anyway.

It is completely unrealistic for me to think I can play three or four times a year and then compete at the Masters. Likewise, it is completely unrealistic to expect that I will innovate only occasionally and then create the “next iPod” or whatever your baseline construct for disruptive innovation is. Interestingly, most CEOs or executives who tell their teams to be innovative have an outcome more like the Masters and less like putt-putt in mind. Do you think your CEO or executive sponsor has asked you to innovate to create tiny incremental solutions? No! They want the really exciting, interesting, captivating innovation that gains market awareness and attention, but they certainly aren’t likely to get it.

So, we have these crazy, mismatched expectations and capabilities. People who should be playing a par three course and getting instruction have been turned loose on Pinehurst #2 with no instruction and are expected to bring home the cup. No wonder CEOs are constantly disappointed in their companyies’ innovation efforts, and no wonder many innovation teams live in fear of meeting their executives’ expectations. Periodic, half-hearted attempts at innovation are almost worse than no efforts at all.

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

GUEST POST from Jeffrey Phillips

This is the sixth of several ‘Innovation Perspectives‘ articles we will publish this week from multiple authors to get different perspectives on The Importance of Innovation Strategy:

by Jeffrey Phillips

I’ve thought for a while that it would be great to get a number of bloggers to write about the same topic, which would allow readers to have different perspectives about an innovation topic from noted (well, at least some of us are) experts in the field of innovation. Braden Kelley asked us to write about the need or importance of innovation strategy, so here’s my response to his request.

First, let’s set out that there is really no such thing as innovation strategy. Strategy is about setting out the vision and goals for your company, and what your long term objectives are. Most firms set out some vaguely worded strategy which does not lock them in too much, and which they ignore and settle into a comfortable middle ground. Innovation, on the other hand, is about finding new opportunities or new markets and creating new products, services or business models. Innovation should be in support of, and an enabler to, corporate strategy. There is no innovation strategy.

Now, once strategic goals are established, a firm should begin to ask itself, “How can innovation accelerate our goals and help us achieve differentiation or discover new markets or needs?” If you want to think of an innovation strategy, think of it as deciding whether the firm desires incremental or disruptive innovation, or open or closed innovation, or how much disruption or change the firm expects or can bear. Too many firms start innovation efforts without defining these parameters (what we call the facets of innovation) and trying to work with the project teams in this lack of definition is like watching tap dancers in a mine field. They rest very comfortably on ground that appears to be safe, and are completely unwilling to risk another step unless pushed.

What do successful firms do in regards to innovation and strategy? They define very clearly what they will and won’t do, and what they expect from innovation and from the firm in general, then they empower (I hate that word) the team to do its best. Note that Apple (top down innovators usually in skunkworks) and Gore (bottom up innovators based on core capabilities) both follow this model and have radically different organizations, but expect people within the firm to understand the strategy and to innovate to achieve the strategic goals.

Closing doors by clearly defining your strategic goals is even more important than opening them. Too many firms are afraid to place clear limits and expectations on an innovation team, and so the team flounders from one seemingly valuable opportunity to another. Most firms fail to enunciate their strategies clearly and that hampers everyday operations, and it creates difficult distractions where innovation is concerned. Clarity is called for when the team is doing new, or difficult, or risky things. Leaving the team without an understanding of its mission and how the innovation efforts supports core business strategies or needs is almost criminal, and will usually result in failure.

So, the takeaway is this: innovation is an ENABLER to corporate strategy, and what innovation needs to succeed is clarity about what is important to the business and what risks and scope are offered by the management team for any innovation to succeed.

You can check out all of the ‘Innovation Perspectives‘ articles from the different contributing authors on The Importance of Innovation Strategy 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

by Jeffrey Phillips

Just as the peacekeeper missile and “postal service” have entered the lexicon as oxymorons, I’d like to add another: slow innovation. Clearly, slow or cautious innovation is anathema to innovation and an oxymoron. Why is there such an emphasis on speed where innovation is concerned?

Innovators have to respond quickly with new ideas, and implement the ideas as they arrive, and move boldly when generating ideas and implementing ideas. There’s no such thing as “slow innovation”. Think about it – even firms that aren’t really innovative but want to be ahead of the “pack” are called “fast followers”.

Let’s look at a couple of reasons innovators have a need for speed. First, the world is changing quickly. It seems the pace of change is accelerating and new concepts, new products, new services are constantly being introduced. Simply to participate in this product or service development cycle, your firm has to be operating at a high rate of speed, to spot new trends and identify new opportunities. Then, to ensure your innovations win, you’ve got to identify the right opportunities at the right times, and produce the right products or solutions to meet those needs. Also, it is helpful if you produce them before your competitors, so you can gain more of the awareness and market share than they do.

The second reason for speed is that many new entrants, entrepreneurs and disrupters are looking for the same opportunities to produce new products and services as your firm. Yet they are relatively unencumbered by sloth-like decision making bodies and annual plans that lock an organization in for the next 18 months. If your firm is going to compete, it has to compete with the same rules and the same capabilities. Where innovation is concerned, size isn’t nearly as important as speed.

The third reason for speed is that at some point every person on earth has looked at a new product or service and said “I thought of that two years ago”. Congratulations. You are now a member of the “I thought of that and did not commercialize it” club. Too many firms actually have good, viable ideas for products and concepts but do not commercialize them quickly enough, only to see new entrants or competitors bring a product or service to market faster and gain more credibility and market share. Simply having the idea isn’t enough – you have to speed the product or service through the development process and launch it successfully.

Now, some of you will say “Edison took years to perfect the light bulb. He was rather methodical and took his time.” Edison lived in a period where few people could even imagine what electricity was, much less have the time or knowledge to experiment with different forms of filaments. Today’s Edisons have to move much more quickly as information and knowledge is much more diffused and pace of change is much more radical.

So, what’s an innovator to do? Establish processes and methods for moving quickly, subverting or avoiding the typical planning and approval cycle. Demonstrate the importance of quick decisions, quick implementations of new ideas and the quick death of an idea that doesn’t prove out. Understand the pace of change and how quickly new needs and opportunities arise, and constantly assess the market to understand the opportunities. Respond quickly to these opportunities, and you’ll be an innovator, not an oxymoron, or worse, roadkill.

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