Category Archives: Innovation

Time to Make a Difference

Time to Make a Difference

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

When it’s time to make meaningful change, there’s no time for consensus.

When the worn path of success must be violated, use a small team.

When it’s time for new thinking, create an unreasonable deadline, and get out of the way.

The best people don’t want the credit, they want to be stretched just short of their breaking point.

When company leadership wants you to build consensus before moving forward, they don’t think the problem is all that important or they don’t trust you.

When it’s time to make unrealistic progress, it’s time for fierce decision making.

When there’s no time for consensus, people’s feelings will be hurt. But there’s no time for that either.

When you’re pissed off because there’s been no progress for three years, do it yourself.

When it’s time to make a difference, permission is not required. Make a difference.

The best people must be given the responsibility to use their judgment.

When it’s time to break the rules, break them.

When the wheels fall off, regardless of the consequences, put them back on.

When you turn no into yes and catch hell for violating protocol, you’re working for the wrong company.

When everyone else has failed, it’s time to use your discretion and do as you see fit.

When you ask the team to make rain and they balk, you didn’t build the right team.

When it’s important and everyone’s afraid of getting it wrong, do it yourself and give them the credit.

The best people crave ridiculous challenges.

When the work must be different, create an environment that demands the team acts differently.

When it’s time for magic, keep the scope tight and the timeline tighter.

When the situation is dire and you use your discretion, to hell with anyone who has a problem with it.

When it’s time to pull a rabbit out of the hat, you get to decide what gets done and your special team member gets to decide how to go about it. Oh, and you also get to set an unreasonable time constraint.

When it’s important, to hell with efficiency. All that matters is effectiveness.

The best people want you to push them to the limit.

When you think you might get fired for making a difference, why the hell would you want to work for a company like that?

When it’s time to disrespect the successful business model, it’s time to create harsh conditions that leave the team no alternative.

The best people want to live where they want to live and do impossible work.

Image credit: Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Breaking Free From Stagnation

Breaking Free From Stagnation

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

As a leader in your organization, you’re under tremendous stress. Not only do you need to deliver against a “growth strategy” that demands constant increases in revenue and profit, but you also need to cut costs and support employees who are more disengaged and burned out than ever before.  If it feels like you’re working harder and running faster than ever to maintain the status quo, then I have good and bad news for you.

Bad news: You’re right. 

The feeling of working harder or moving faster simply to stay in the same place is called the Red Queen effect or hypothesis.  The hypothesis asserts “that species must constantly adapt, evolve, and proliferate in order to survive while pitted against ever-evolving opposing species.”  Its name is inspired by the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, who explains to Alice, “here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.”

You probably feel the same need to adapt to survive “while pitted against ever-evolving opposing species” every time you see new technologies, read about another new management framework, or hear news from your competitors. You also understand that your organization needs to grow and often hear that it needs to do so at all costs, so you buckle down, work hard, and pull off quarterly miracles.

Good for you! You’re reward?  You get to do it all over again, and faster, this quarter.  And, to add insult to injury, all that growth you’re working harder and harder to achieve is a mirage.

75% of companies do not grow.

HBS professor Gary P. Pisano examined the growth rate of 10,897 publicly held US companies between 1976 and 2019.  When adjusted for inflation, the top quartile grew 11.8% yearly, but the other 75% showed little to negative growth. 

Being in that top quartile was no guarantee of success, as only 15% (3% of the total sample) were able to sustain a growth rate of 0.3%+ for 30 years. In fact, only SEVEN companies—Walmart, UPS, Southwest, Publix, Johnson & Johnson, Danaher, and Berkshire Hathaway—were top-quartile growth companies throughout the thirty years studied.

If you worked at one of those 7 companies, congrats!  Your hard work delivered real and repeatable growth.  If you worked at any of the other 10,890, I hope they offer great benefits?

We know why.

Every good academic knows you can’t just throw out some data without trying to find a causal link, and Professor Pisano is a good academic

“I have found that while the usual explanations for slow or minimal growth—market forces and technological changes such as disruptive innovation—play a role, many companies’ growth problems are self-inflicted. Specifically, firms approach growth in a highly reactive, opportunistic manner. When market demand is booming, they go on hiring binges, throw resources at developing new capacity, and build out organizational infrastructure without thinking through the implications… In the process of chasing growth, companies can easily destroy the things that made them successful in the first place, such as their capacity for innovation, their agility, their great customer service, or their unique cultures. When demand slows, pressures to maintain historical growth rates can lead to quick-fix solutions such as costly acquisitions or drastic cuts in R&D, other capabilities, and training. The damage caused by these moves only exacerbates the growth problems.”

(Bold text added by me)

Good news: You Can Do Something About It

In fact, as a leader in your organization, you’re among the few who have any prayer of pulling your organization out of the Red Queen’s race and putting it on track to real and sustainable growth. Achieving this incredible success requires you (and your colleagues) to decide three things:

  1. How fast to grow (target rate of growth)
  2. Where to find sources of new demand (direction of growth)
  3. How to assemble the resources required to grow (method of growth)

Together, these three decisions comprise your growth strategy and enable your organization to achieve the “delicate balance” between demand and supply required to sustain profitable growth.

Getting to these decisions isn’t easy, but neither is slaying the Jabberwocky.  So, as this brief rest stop in your race comes to an end, who do you choose to be – Alice, who works hard and deals with a bit of nonsense to progress, or the Red Queen, content to work harder to stay in the same place?

Image credit: Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Only One Type of Innovation Will Win the Future

Only One Type of Innovation Will Win the Future

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Very few businesses last. While we like to think we live in a particularly disruptive era, this has always been true. Entrepreneurs start businesses because they see opportunity and build skills, practices and processes to leverage it. Yet as the world changes, these strengths often become vulnerabilities.

The problem is that the past is not always a good guide to the future. Business models, even the successful ones, are designed for inertia. They are great for leveraging past insights, but are often resistant to change. Success does not, in fact, always breed more success, sometimes it breeds failure.

That’s why every business needs to innovate. Yet innovation is not, as some would have us believe, just about moving fast and breaking things. It’s about solving the problems you need to create a better future. What most fail to grasp is that a key factor of success is how you source problems, build a pipeline and, ultimately, choose which ones you will work on.

1. Getting Better At What You Already Do

Every year, Apple comes up with a new iPhone. That’s not as exciting as it used to be, but it’s still key to the company maintaining its competitive edge. Every model is a bit faster, more secure and has new features that make it more capable. It’s still an iPhone, but better.

Some self-appointed ‘innovation gurus” often scoff at this type of innovation as “incremental” and favor new technologies that are more “radical” or “disruptive,” but the truth is that this is where you derive the most value from innovation — getting better at what you already do and selling to customers what you already know.

So the first line of defense against irrelevance is to identify ways to improve performance in current practices and processes. The challenge, of course, with this type of innovation is that your competitors will be working on the same problems you are and it takes no small amount of agility and iteration to stay ahead. Even then, any victory is short-lived.

Still, most technologies can be improved for a long time. Moore’s Law, for example, has been around for almost 50 years and is just ending now.

2. Applying What You’re Already Good At To A Different Context

Amazon started out selling books online. It then applied its approach to other categories, such as electronics and toys. That took enormous investments in technology, which it then used to create new businesses, such as Amazon Web Services (AWS), Kindle tablets and its Echo line of smart speakers.

In each case, the company took what it already did well and expanded to an adjacent set of markets or capabilities, often with great success. The Kindle helped the company dominate e-books and strengthened its core business. AWS is far more profitable than online retail and accounts for virtually all of Amazon’s operating income.

Still, adjacent opportunities are can be risky. Amazon, despite its huge successes, has had its share of flops too. Whenever you go into a new business you are, to a greater or lesser extent, charting a course into the unknown. So you need to proceed with some caution. When you launch a new business into an adjacency, you are basically launching a startup and most of those fail.

3. Finding A Completely New Problem To Solve

Besides getting better at what you already do and applying things you already know to a different market or capability, you can also look for a new problem to solve. Clearly, this the most uncertain type of opportunity, because no one knows what a good solution will look like.

To return to the Moore’s law example, everybody knows what a 20% performance improvement in computer chips looks like. Metrics for speed and power consumption have long been established, so there is little ambiguity around what would constitute success. Customers will instantly recognize the improvement as having a specific market value.

On the other hand, no one knows what the value of a quantum computer will be. It’s a fundamentally new kind of technology that will solve new types of problems. So customers will have to explore the technology and figure out how to use it to create better products and services.

Despite the uncertainty though, I found in the research that led to my book, Mapping Innovation, that this type of exploration is probably the closest thing to a sure bet that you’re going to find. Every single organization I studied that invested in exploration found that it paid off big, with extremely high returns even accounting for the inevitable wrong turns and blind alleys.

The 70-20-10 Rule

Go to any innovation conference and you will find no shortage of debates about what type of approach creates the most value, usually ending with no satisfying conclusion. The truth is that every organization needs to improve what they already do, search for opportunities in adjacencies and explore new problems. The key is how you manage resources.

One popular approach is the 70-20-10 rule, which prescribes investing 70% of your innovation resources in improving existing technologies, 20% in adjacent markets and capabilities and 10% in markets and capabilities that don’t exist yet. That’s more of a rule of thumb than a physical law and should be taken with a grain of salt, but it’s a good guide.

Practically speaking, however, I have found that the exploration piece is the most neglected. All too often, in our over-optimized business environment, any business opportunity that can’t be immediately quantified in considered a non-starter. So we fail to begin to explore new problems until their market value has been unlocked by someone else. By that point, we are already behind the curve.

Make no mistake. The next big thing always starts out looking like nothing at all. Things that change the world always arrive out of context for the simple reason that the world hasn’t changed yet. But if you do not explore, you will not discover. If you do not discover, you will not invent. And if you do not invent, you will be disrupted. It’s just a matter of time.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog and previously appeared on Inc.com
— Image credits: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.






Are We Doing Social Innovation Wrong?

Are We Doing Social Innovation Wrong?

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

The Volume Operations business model kicks in when you have hundreds of thousands of users and goes up from there. 100,000, for those of us who are not math majors, is 10 to the power of 5. Uber-successful volume ops businesses operate at 10 to the power of 9 and up—millions of users or customers. But if you are a start-up, you are looking at 10 or maybe 100. How do you get from here to there?

The key thought to keep in mind is the old chestnut “what got you here won’t get you there.” That is, whatever operating model you have, keep in mind it can scale to two exponents but never to three. That means for every two exponents you have to change operating models, which likely means you have to change executive leadership in order to go forward.

To illustrate this idea, I’d like to focus on the non-profit sector and ask the question, what would it take to really solve for any widespread social problem? Homelessness was the first one that came to mind, but hunger is another obvious one, drug addiction a second, street crime a third. They are all seemingly intractable issues that, despite the best intentions of a whole raft of people, and regardless of how much funding is supplied, stubbornly resist any sustainable improvement.

The question I want to address is not what programs would work—because I actually think a whole lot of programs would work—but rather, how could we organize to deploy these programs successfully at scale.

Following our principle of what got you here won’t get you there, we need a ladder of operating models that can take us, exponent by exponent, from 10 to the power of 1 to, say, 10 to the power of 7. What might that look like?

Scaling Social Innovation

Consider this a straw man, a place to start, something to edit. It conveys a key lesson from the high-tech sector, namely that the fastest way to kill a disruptive innovation is to race to scale by skipping over one or more of these “exponential steps.” It just doesn’t work. There are too many emergent factors at each new level you must learn to cope with in order to succeed. The only reliable way to scale is to ratchet your way up this staircase, adapting your systems and operations as you go.

Unfortunately, that’s not what politicians do. They want to make a big impact right away. That means they start everything on one of the upper stairs. Driven by impatience, they ignore the dynamics of adoption and demand mass deployment from the get-go. They think the problem is simply one of getting enough funding. It’s not. It’s one of operational innovation. Scaling prematurely simply wastes the funding. And then when programs do flounder, as they inevitably will, they blame it on execution when in reality they simply did not do the hard, time-consuming work of building up their foundation step by step from below.

One of the implications of this framework is that social services should be incubated in the private sector where freedom from regulatory constraints supports agile innovation. But as they scale, the importance of regulatory oversight increases and more communal engagement is required. The goal should be to keep this oversight as local as possible as long as possible, doing as much as we can to empower the people delivering the service itself. Once that operating model solidifies, then, and only then, is there a proper foundation for scaling to state and federal programs.

Today, we do not lack the empathy to support social services. Nor do we lack the funding. But we are failing nonetheless. We can do better. We need to do better.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

Image Credit: Pexels

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.






Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of July 2024

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of July 2024Drum roll please…

At the beginning of each month, we will profile the ten articles from the previous month that generated the most traffic to Human-Centered Change & Innovation. Did your favorite make the cut?

But enough delay, here are July’s ten most popular innovation posts:

  1. Organizational Debt Syndrome Poses a Threat — by Stefan Lindegaard
  2. Do Nothing More Often — by Robyn Bolton
  3. Is Disruption About to Claim a New Victim? — by Robyn Bolton
  4. What Top Innovators Do Differently — by Greg Satell
  5. Four Hidden Secrets of Innovation — by Greg Gatell
  6. Rise of the Atomic Consultant — by Braden Kelley
  7. Do You Bring Your Whole Self to Work? — by Mike Shipulski
  8. Giving Your Team a Sense of Shared Purpose — by David Burkus
  9. Creating Effective Digital Teams — by Howard Tiersky
  10. Smarter Risk Taking — by Janet Sernack

BONUS – Here are five more strong articles published in June that continue to resonate with people:

If you’re not familiar with Human-Centered Change & Innovation, we publish 4-7 new articles every week built around innovation and transformation insights from our roster of contributing authors and ad hoc submissions from community members. Get the articles right in your Facebook, Twitter or Linkedin feeds too!

Have something to contribute?

Human-Centered Change & Innovation is open to contributions from any and all innovation and transformation professionals out there (practitioners, professors, researchers, consultants, authors, etc.) who have valuable human-centered change and innovation insights to share with everyone for the greater good. If you’d like to contribute, please contact me.

P.S. Here are our Top 40 Innovation Bloggers lists from the last four years:

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






Finding Innovation in the Humble Garbage Can

Finding Innovation in the Humble Garbage Can

GUEST POST from Howard Tiersky

Uber has taught us that even the most commonplace products and services are ripe with innovation. They’ve re-invented the taxi experience, and many people would agree that, given a choice, they’d never go back to the old way.
Today, I want to give a shout out to another company, one that’s doing amazing things with garbage cans: simplehuman.

Simplehuman, founded in 2000 by Frank Yang, is a great case study in terms of product innovation, as well as business model. It had one simple mission: make a better trash can. For the last year, I’ve had a simplyhuman garbage can in my kitchen, so I can attest. It is a better trash can.

Before we switched to simplehuman, this is the kind of trash can we had in the kitchen:

And this is the simplehuman can that’s in my kitchen today:

Two features of this product make it a real game-changer. The lesser of these was the rim around the top that completely hides the edges of the plastic bag that peek over the edge most cans. I didn’t realize how ugly this was until it was gone. (insert sigh of relief here)

But the real hero is the built-in garbage bag dispenser. As you can see from the image below (pulled directly from simplehuman’s website), a dispenser for new garbage bags is built right into the body of the can, saving me from having to walk across the room to get a new bag from the box under the kitchen sink when I need a replacement. Yes, this is a seemingly small inconvenience, but once it’s removed, it seems a silly waste of effort that you ever had to walk across the room in the first place.

While they may not be solving world hunger, these two improvements are enough for me to never want to go back.

Simplehuman: Our new stainless steel rectangular step can features an innovative ‘liner pocket’ that stores and dispenses liners from inside the can for a faster liner change.

But from a business perspective, here’s where it gets interesting. In order to have garbage bags that fit both the dispenser and perfectly around the rim (so that no “spillover” bag is showing,) I need to use their custom-fitted bags. These bags are sized specifically for this can and come in little boxes perfectly sized to fit the built-in dispenser.

So where does one get these magical bags? Well, when you buy the can, there’s an insert that directs you to download simplehuman’s app. In the app, you can “manage your supplies,” by ordering garbage bags or, even better, setting up a subscription, which is what I did.

What do these garbage bags cost? A 100-count box of simplehuman garbage bags is about $25. That doesn’t break the bank, but as it turns out, it’s about twice what Hefty and Glad bags cost. Besides that, the garbage can itself is about $100, compared with less than half of that for one of their less innovative competitor’s stainless steel kitchen garbage cans. Again, not outrageous, but still a substantial premium. So what’s innovation worth to simplehuman? About double. And it’s worth it to me to pay it to solve problems, even if I never realized there were problems until simplehuman’s solution brought them to my attention.

Coming up with these types of innovations for your business starts with finding painpoints. What is your customer’s equivalent of having to walk across the room to get a garbage bag from under the sink? It doesn’t have to be pain that drives them crazy. Solving just a small irritation can turn out to be a highly appreciated innovation. And what about aesthetic gaps in your products that nobody focuses on, but would be obvious once gone (the way Steve Jobs showed us how ugly PCs were by creating the iMac)?

Finding these types of unmet points of pain can be achieved through ethnography and other research techniques that create customer empathy. Techniques like these can generate profound insights with relatively minimal effort, and at FROM, we utilize them on nearly every project. The majority of the time, the most winning features of the new digital products we create come from solving problems generated by these insights. The ideas may not come from the customers (in fact, they probably won’t) but the pain insights do. Once you have those, it can open up new doors, and allow your team to come up with many new solutions.

Additionally, innovation is often not just about the product, but also the business model. Achieving simplehuman’s innovation required custom-fit garbage bags. I’d imagine that, at one point before launching this product, simplehuman realized it would be difficult to get every grocery store in America to carry these bags, especially before their product achieved critical mass. That logistical problem could have killed the whole concept. But instead of working within the existing ecosystem, where can-sellers have to align to a few non-tailored garbage bag sizes, they shifted their business model to app-based subscription. This allowed them not only to deliver the innovation, but also to double the price of their bags (probably without customers even noticing, since their bags aren’t sold side-by-side with mainstream brands), and to realize 100% of the revenue via direct sales, rather than splitting with a retailer and distributor.

So I say Bravo!, simplehuman. Great innovation, great business, and thanks for making my life a little bit better — I’m happy to pay you more for it. Now imagine what I’d be willing to pay if you could figure out how to get the can to take the full garbage bag outside!

This article originally appeared on the Howard Tiersky blog
Image Credits: Pixabay

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






What is Your Purpose?

What is Your Purpose?

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Purpose.  Goal.  Mission.  You hear these words a lot this time of year.  Not because it’s the start of the annual business planning cycle but because it’s graduation season. 

Across the country, commencement speakers and wise family members espouse the importance of having a purpose to guide and sustain graduates as they set out on their next adventures.

All the talk of purpose can feel overwhelming, especially as you listen to graduates’ wide-eyed optimism about how they will change the world while stewing in an existential crisis that makes you wonder if you even have a purpose.

You do.

And part of that purpose is finding and creating purpose.

What is “Purpose?’

Purpose hasn’t reached buzzword status, but it’s close, so let’s start with a definition, or three, courtesy of The Britannica Dictionary:

  1. the reason why something is done or used: the aim or intention of something – The purpose of innovation is to create value
  2. the feeling of being determined to do or achieve something – The team worked with purpose
  3. the aim or goal of a person: what a person is trying to do, become, etc. – He knew from a young age that her sole purpose in life was to be an orthodontist

Three different definitions of purpose.  Three questions that it’s part of your purpose to ask.

“What’s THE purpose?”

Innovation is all about creating value.  Sometimes, to create value, you need to do new things.  Sometimes, you need to stop doing things.  It’s hard to tell the difference if you don’t ask.

That’s why innovative leaders are curious.  You aren’t afraid to ask, “What’s the purpose of this product/process/meeting/decision/(fill in the blank).”  You want to know “why something is done or used,” and they know that the best way to figure that out is by asking.

You ask this question at least once a day.  When you ask it, you’re genuinely curious about the answer.  After all, we’ve all experienced people and cultures that weaponize questions – “Johnny, is that where the scissors go?” or “Why did you think that was a good idea?” – and you reassure people that you’re asking a genuine question, even if they should know that by your tone.

“What’s OUR purpose?”

Innovation is hard.  You live in ambiguity and uncertainty.  You fail (learn) more often than you succeed.  You are told “No” and “Stop” more than “Yes,” “Keep going,” and “Thank You.”

Innovators are courageous.  You do the hard work of innovation because you are “determined to do or achieve something.” 

You also know that sustaining courage and purpose requires a team. 

You aren’t fooled by the myth of the lone genius. After all, Thomas Edison worked with as many as 200 people in his West Orange lab. Heck, even Steve Jobs needed Sir Jony Ive (and a few hundred other people) to bring his vision of “1,000 songs in your pocket” to life.

“What’s MY purpose?”

Innovation takes a long time.  Change happens gradually, then suddenly.  We chose to preserve what we have, rather than take a risk to get more.

Innovators are committed.  You are patient for change, steadfast in the face of resistance, and optimistic when others are afraid because of your “aim or goal…what [you are] trying to do, become, etc.” 

Even if you can’t articulate it in a grand statement or simple, pithy soundbite, you have a purpose.  As Viktor Frankl wrote, “Those who have a ‘why’ to live, can bear with almost any ‘how’.”

Three Purposes.  Three questions

Even if you lack the wide-eyed optimism of a new graduate and feel like you spend most days just muddling through life, because you are here, you have a purpose.  So tell me:

  1. When was the last time you were curious and asked, “What’s the purpose of (artifact of the status quo)?”
  2. When was the last time you were courageous and used your feeling of determination to inspire others to join your purpose, overcome obstacles, and get something done?
  3. When was the last time you had to dig deep, rediscover your purpose, and reinforce your commitment so that you could bear and overcome the “how?”

Image credit: Dall-E via Microsoft Bing

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Your Strategy Must Reach Beyond Markets to Ecosystems

Your Strategy Must Reach Beyond Markets to Ecosystems

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In the 1960s and 70s, Route 128 outside of Boston was the center of technology, but by the 1990s Silicon Valley had taken over and never looked back. As AnnaLee Saxenian explained in Regional Advantage, the key difference was that while Route 128 was a collection of value chains, Silicon Valley built an ecosystem.

Clearly, ecosystems are even more important today than they were back then. In fact, a study by Accenture Strategy a few years ago found that ecosystems are a “cornerstone” of future growth and that 60% of executives surveyed viewed ecosystems as a way to disrupt their industry. A similar number saw them as key to increasing revenue.

The problem is that competing in an ecosystem environment is vastly different than a traditional value chain strategy. While a value chain is driven by efficiencies, an ecosystem is driven by connections in a network. So we need to do more than adapt our strategy and tactics, we need to learn how to play a whole new game. The first step is to learn the rules.

First, Start Early

One of the key aspects of ecosystems is that they don’t seem all that important at first. By the time it becomes clear that a change is underway, it is often too late to adapt. The demise of Boston’s technology companies is a great example of how that can happen. Dominant firms such as DEC, Data General and Wang Laboratories found themselves irrelevant so quickly that they never recovered.

Network scientists call this an ‘instantaneous phase transition’ and it happens because connections tend to form slowly. They start as isolated clusters that, even taken in sum, don’t seem to amount to much. However, when those clusters connect, a cascade ensues and what once seemed inconsequential suddenly becomes predominant.

That’s why it’s so important to become active in an ecosystem before those clusters connect, when things are moving relatively slowly, everybody wants to talk to you and the price of admission is still fairly cheap. Once an ecosystem begins to thrive, things move much faster and costs for entry raise exponentially.

Consider the automobile industry, which is now spending billions to set up research centers in Silicon Valley. Just think of how much cheaper — and more effective — it would have been for those companies to have started 20 or 30 years ago.

Not Just Spinning Out, But Spinning In

A typical strategy for an enterprise looking to leverage an ecosystem is to spin out a division to focus on activities that are relevant to it. These spinoffs tend to have a lot more in common with the ecosystem firms than the parent company and therefore are much more able to connect. However, because links to the parent company become more tenuous over time, benefits are limited.

A potentially more successful strategy is to spin ecosystem firms in. For example, the National Labs have set up programs like Cyclotron Road, Chain Reaction and Innovation Crossroads that invite entrepreneurial firms to come work at the labs, make use of the scientific facilities and be mentored by top scientists.

In the private sector, corporate venture capital operations, as well as incubators and accelerators, can be a great way to connect with small entrepreneurial companies early in the ecosystem lifecycle. Beyond the actual investments made, these programs give you the opportunity to connect with hundreds of small firms, some of which can become important partners, suppliers and customers later on.

What’s crucial is that you are not seen as an interloper, but a true source of value, whether that value is in actual monetary investment, access to facilities and expertise or connection to points of market access. What may be insignificant to your company may be incredibly valuable to a small, entrepreneurial firm.

Maintaining Open Nodes

One of Saxenian’s most interesting findings in Regional Advantage was how differently the Boston technology firms treated outsiders compared to the Silicon Valley companies. The Boston firms were vertically integrated and sought to keep everything in-house. The Silicon Valley companies, on the other hand, thrived on connection.

For example, in Silicon Valley if you left your employer to start a company of your own, you were still considered part of the family. Many new entrepreneurs became suppliers or customers to their former employers and still socialized actively with their former colleagues. In Boston, if you left your firm you were treated as a pariah.

When technology began to shift in the 80s and 90s, the Boston firms had little, if any, connection to the new ecosystems that were evolving. In Silicon Valley, however, connections to former employees acted as an antenna network, providing early market intelligence that helped those companies adapt.

So while it is necessary to reach out to evolving ecosystems, it is just as important to ensure that there are also paths for small entrepreneurial firms to engage within your enterprise. Ecosystems thrive on personal connections. Those may not show up on a strategic plan or a balance sheet, but they are just as important as any other asset.

The New Competitive Advantage

Ever since Harvard professor Michael Porter published his seminal book, Competitive Strategy in 1980, strategists have sought advantage through driving efficiencies in order to maximize bargaining power against customers, suppliers, substitute goods and new market entrants. By doing so, they could achieve higher margins and invest in greater efficiencies, creating a virtuous cycle.

Yet today things move much too fast for that kind of chess game. To compete in a networked world, you must constantly widen and deepen connections. Instead of always looking to maximize bargaining power, you need to look for opportunities to co-create with customers and suppliers, to integrate your products and services with potential substitutes and form partnerships with new market entrants.

Power no longer resides at the top of value chains, but rather at the center of networks and collaboration has become the new competitive advantage. Value is no longer merely a target for extraction, but an asset for connection. You need to be seen to be adding value to the ecosystem in order to get value out.

The truth is that we can no longer manage for stability, we must manage for disruption. We can’t predict the future, but we can connect to it, nurture it and profit from it. Yet to do so requires far more than a simple shift in strategy and tactics. It requires a fundamental change in mindset.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog and previously appeared on Inc.com
— Image credits: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.






Unlocking Innovation Through Prototyping

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

A prototype moves us from “That’s not possible.” to “Hey, watch this!”

A prototype moves us from “We don’t do it that way.” to “Well, we do now.”

A prototype moves us from “That’s impossible.” to “As it turns out, it was only almost impossible.”

A prototype turns naysayers into enemies and profits.

A prototype moves us from an argument to a new product development project.

A prototype turns analysis-paralysis into progress.

A prototype turns a skeptical VP into a vicious advocate.

A prototype turns a pet project into top-line growth.

A prototype turns disbelievers into originators of the idea.

A prototype can turn a Digital Strategy into customer value.

A prototype can turn an uncomfortable Board of Directors meeting into a pizza party.

A prototype can save a CEO’s ass.

A prototype can be too early, but mostly they’re too late.

If the wheels fall off your first prototype, you’re doing it right.

If your prototype doesn’t dismantle the Status-Quo, you built the wrong prototype.

A good prototype violates your business model.

A prototype doesn’t care if you see it for what it is because it knows everyone else will.

A prototype turns “I don’t believe you.” into “You don’t have to.”

When you’re told “Don’t make that prototype.” you’re onto something.

A prototype eats not-invented-here for breakfast.

A prototype can overpower the staunchest critic, even the VP flavor.

A prototype moves us from “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” to “Oh, yes I do.”

If the wheels fall off your second prototype, keep going.

A prototype is objective evidence you’re trying to make a difference.

You can argue with a prototype, but you’ll lose.

If there’s a mismatch between the theory and the prototype, believe the prototype.

A prototype doesn’t have to do everything, but it must do one important thing for the first time.

A prototype must be real, but it doesn’t have to be really real.

If your prototype obsoletes your best product, congratulations.

A prototype turns political posturing into reluctant compliance and profits.

A prototype turns “What the hell are you talking about?” into “This.”

A good prototype bestows privilege on the prototype creator.

A prototype can beat a CEO in an arm-wrestling match.

A prototype doesn’t care if you like it. It only cares about creating customer value.

If there’s an argument between a well-stated theory and a well-functioning prototype, it’s pretty clear which camp will refine their theory to line up with what they just saw with their own eyes.

A prototype knows it has every right to tell the critics to “Kiss my ass.” but it knows it doesn’t have to.

You can argue with a prototype, but shouldn’t.

A prototype changes thinking without asking for consent.

Image credit: misterinnovation.com

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.






Organizational Debt Syndrome Poses a Threat

Organizational Debt Syndrome Poses a Threat

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

Organizations face numerous challenges as they grow and evolve. One of the most significant challenges is the Organizational Debt Syndrome, a phenomenon that results from accumulated compromises and shortcuts taken in people, culture, and leadership practices over time.

Just as financial – and technical – debt accumulates and becomes a burden, organizational debt accumulates and creates difficulties for the organization, such as reduced agility, slower delivery, decreased competitiveness, decreased employee morale, and increased resistance to change.

Organizational Debt Syndrome is a particular concern for scale-up companies, given the rapid pace of growth they experience and the changes they face both internally and externally. This syndrome can become a vicious cycle, as the organization’s inability to address the debt leads to further compromise and a worsening of the situation. However, even large, more established organizations and their teams need to address this issue to stay, or become, more agile.

The ability to adapt to change, manage transformation, and drive innovation is essential for organizations to thrive and succeed in today’s fast-paced business environment. If left unaddressed, the Organizational Debt Syndrome can limit an organization’s ability to adapt to changing market conditions, make it less competitive, and ultimately lead to its downfall.

Signs of Organizational Debt Syndrome

Organizational debt can be identified by several signs that indicate the organization is struggling to be agile, efficient, and competitive.

Some of the signs of organizational debt include:

  1. Decreased agility: When a company is struggling with organizational debt, it can become less agile and less able to respond quickly to changes in the market or new opportunities. This can result in missed opportunities for growth and increased competition.
  2. Slowed delivery: Projects that once took only a few weeks to complete can start taking several months or even years. This can lead to a backlog of work that is never completed, which can further reduce efficiency and competitiveness.
  3. Reduced competitiveness: Companies that are suffering from organizational debt often fall behind their competitors in terms of innovation, product development, and market share. This can be due to a lack of investment in research and development, a lack of focus on innovation, or a lack of support for new ideas.
  4. Decreased employee morale: When a company is struggling with organizational debt, it can also lead to decreased employee morale. This can result in disengaged employees who are unenthusiastic about their work and may be more likely to leave the company.
  5. Increased resistance to change: The culture of a company suffering from organizational debt can become resistant to new ideas and changes, making it difficult for the company to adapt to new market conditions. This can result in missed opportunities for growth and increased competition.

Leaders can spot these issues by regularly monitoring the company’s performance, gathering feedback from employees, and conducting regular audits of processes and systems.

Applying Metrics and KPI’s for Organizational Debt Syndrome

Here are some of the metrics that leaders can use to track the health of their organization and identify signs of organizational debt syndrome. These metrics provide insight into key areas such as delivery times, market share, sales and revenue, employee morale, company culture, competitiveness, and adaptability based on three categories of performance, behavioral and innovation metrics:

Performance metrics:

  • Delivery times: Leaders should track how long it takes for projects to be completed, as this can indicate a decrease in efficiency.
  • Market share: By monitoring their company’s market share, leaders can see if their organization is falling behind competitors.
  • Sales and revenue: Regularly monitoring sales and revenue can help leaders see if the organization is losing ground in the market.
  • Employee turnover: High rates of employee turnover can indicate low morale and engagement among employees.
  • Profit margins: Tracking the organization’s profit margins can give leaders insight into its financial health.
  • Productivity: Monitoring employee productivity can give leaders an understanding of how effectively the organization is utilizing its resources.
  • Operational costs: Keeping an eye on operational costs, including overhead expenses and supply chain expenses, can help leaders identify areas where the organization may be overspending.

Behavioral metrics:

  • Employee feedback: Leaders should gather feedback from employees on a regular basis. This can help them understand how engaged employees are with their work and the company culture.
  • Meeting dynamics: Observing the dynamics of meetings and interactions between employees can give leaders a sense of the company culture and whether it is resistant to change.
  • Employee satisfaction: Measuring employee satisfaction through regular surveys can help leaders understand the level of morale and engagement among employees.
  • Communication patterns: Tracking the frequency and effectiveness of communication within the organization can give leaders an understanding of the organization’s culture and dynamics.
  • Collaboration: Measuring the level of collaboration between departments and teams can give leaders insight into the organization’s ability to work together effectively.

Innovation metrics:

  • Customer satisfaction with new products: Feedback from customers on their satisfaction with new products and services
  • Employee engagement in innovation: Measure of employee engagement and involvement in the innovation process
  • Adoption of new technologies: Monitoring the organization’s adoption of new technologies can give leaders an understanding of its ability to adapt to new trends and advancements in its industry.
  • Number of new ideas generated: Tracking the number of new ideas generated by employees can give leaders insight into the organization’s ability to innovate.

If leadership teams regularly monitor the various metrics, they achieve valuable insights into the state of their organization and this helps them identify signs of organizational debt syndrome.

It is important to note that metrics should be used as a tool, not as the sole indicator of success or failure, as it’s important to consider the context and complexity of organizational dynamics. By taking an holistic approach like this, leaders can work to prevent and mitigate the negative impact of organizational debt syndrome.

Addressing Organizational Debt Syndrome

To prevent and address the Organizational Debt Syndrome, leaders and their teams must take a proactive approach, which includes steps such as:

  1. Awareness: Leaders must first be aware of the concept of Organizational Debt Syndrome and its potential impact on the organization.
  2. Assessment: Leaders must regularly assess the organization’s performance and gather feedback from employees and stakeholders to identify any signs of organizational debt.
  3. Root cause analysis: Once the issues have been identified, leaders must conduct a root cause analysis to understand the underlying causes and drivers of organizational debt.
  4. Prioritization: Leaders must prioritize the most pressing issues and determine which ones to address first based on their impact on the organization.
  5. Action plan: Leaders must develop a comprehensive action plan to address the root causes of organizational debt, which may include revising processes, restructuring teams, and implementing new systems and technologies.
  6. Implementation: The action plan must be implemented effectively, with clear goals, timelines, and metrics for measuring progress.
  7. Continuous improvement: Leaders must continuously monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the action plan and make adjustments as needed to ensure the organization remains agile and competitive.

At the early stages of addressing the Organizational Debt Syndrome, reflection is key for the leadership team. Everyone is super busy these days and there is a tendency to focus on short term issues related to growth and “just” managing the day-to-day business rather than shaping the future and taking steps to do the right things for the long run.

So, it’s understandable that leaders will not dive into action immediately but they must start to reflect on this and develop a plan for addressing this.

Organizational Debt Syndrome is a real challenge for organizations as they grow, evolve and transform. By recognizing the signs of this syndrome and taking a proactive approach to addressing its root causes, leaders can help their organizations overcome the negative impacts of organizational debt and become more stable, sustainable, and successful.

It’s definitely not easy but it is doable and it starts with reflection and acknowledgement of the issues at hand.

Image Credit: Pixabay, Stefan Lindegaard

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