Category Archives: Innovation

Navigating Uncertainty Requires a Map

Why map-making skills matter in innovation

Navigating Uncertainty Requires a Map

GUEST POST from John Bessant

There are some questions in life which can be answered quickly, no real thought required, simple yes/no options. Others might involve a longer period of time, perhaps a pleasant exploration of the possibilities. Philosophical enquiries, searching for meaning in life, the universe, everything….

But there’s one set of questions which brook no hesitation, which demand instant application to the task in hand. Those are concerned with ‘helping with daughter’s homework’ and which usually extend to occupy most of the available evening. Which is how I’ve found myself pondering the big question of ‘how can maps help us?’, as an accompaniment to trying to create with her a schematic map of our house and garden….

It’s easy to take maps for granted — but we’d be pretty stuck without them. Maps have been one of the most important human inventions for millennia, allowing humans to explain and navigate their way through the world. They seem to have been — independently invented by many cultures across the globe, and they’ve been around a very long time. Fragments etched on tusks or scratched on stones, dating back 25000 years or more all point to maps as something important. Which makes sense from an evolutionary point of view — it would help our survival a lot if we were able to chart where to find food, mark dangers, settle boundary disputes. Especially if we could share that knowledge with others.

And it’s not just maps of where we’ve been and how to get back there. Maps also drove exploration and enabled trade. Phoenician sailors way back 3000 years ago were managing long trips like discovering a way round Africa and the explosion of global trade and imperials expansion owes much to explorers like Magellan, Columbus, Drake and da Gama. Their voyages showed us that (a) the world isn’t flat with an edge you can fall off and (b) that there were impressive profits to be made if you could reliably head for (and more importantly come back from) exotic destinations like the spice islands. Maps were at the heart if this — and one reason why the Portuguese lost their early advantage to the Dutch East India company was the acquisition (by fair means or foul) of the key maps ….

Maps aren’t just passive guidebooks either. They can certainly help us get from (a) to (b) reliably and repeat the trick. But they also act as warnings, signposting where to go but also what to avoid and why — from ‘here be dragons’ markings on medieval charts through to today’s detailed lines of demarcation around danger areas.

And maps can set the rule of the game. Much of the work of early cartographers was charting not only the physical layout of land and sea but the political and economic one. Wars have a nasty habit of involving incursions into territory ‘owned’ by someone else. And maps continue to play a role in the political landscape — for example redrawing electoral boundaries isn’t simply a psephological exercise, it’s a power game.

So maps matter — and (as my daughter’s homework underlines) we need to learn to work with them, even in an age of GPS and automated guidance.

What has all this to do with innovation? Quite a lot in fact: maps and map-making provides a powerful metaphor for much of what we do when we try to manage the uncertain journey which innovation involves. There’s probably hundreds of applications of the idea but here are five which spring quickly to mind:

1. Navigating uncertainty

Innovation is all about uncertainty, it’s not simple planning but a probe into unknown territory. When we think about radical innovation we are certainly in the realm of high uncertainty, trying to feel our way through the fog. Even incremental innovation — doing what we do but better — has its surprises, like the diversions we might need to make on a well-used route because of road works or repairs.

So making even the crudest of sketch maps for ourselves might help, and using charts begged, borrowed or stolen from other voyagers would be a recommended strategy. After all someone else may have made a similar journey and there might be clues in their codified experience — a sort of ‘trip advisor’ resource, or (for those not yet familiar with the classic ‘Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) a guidebook plus maps with the important reassurance ‘Don’t panic!’ scrawled across the front cover.

Maps can warn of topographical challenges like rivers to be crossed or mountains to be climbed and in similar fashion making maps of the wider context in which our innovation is going to emerge will be helpful. For example, a healthcare start-up needs to map regulatory challenges, market demands, and technological barriers. Understanding these “elevations” and “obstacles” helps the company prepare strategies to overcome or navigate through them.

Maps come in many flavours, including exotics like ‘heat maps’ which can be useful in terms of analysing energy consumption for example (I got that one from Lara’s homework book). Same thing with innovation — sometimes ‘heat maps’ can help focus attention on key areas for development, for example in identifying market trends, customer preferences, and areas ripe for innovation.

Starbucks uses heat maps to analyze customer behaviour and preferences in different regions. This data helps the company identify hotspots where certain products or services are more popular, allowing for targeted marketing and product offerings. For example, Starbucks identified a growing trend in mobile ordering and payment, leading to the successful rollout of their mobile app, which has significantly enhanced customer convenience and engagement.

And, especially in service innovation, journey maps can help visualize the customer experience, detailing each touchpoint and interaction a customer has with a product or service. This helps in refining and improving the innovation to better meet customer needs.

Airbnb uses journey mapping to enhance the user experience for both hosts and guests. By mapping out every interaction a user has with the platform — from searching for a property to post-stay reviews — Airbnb identifies pain points and opportunities for improvement. This customer-centric approach has led to features like the Superhost program and streamlined booking processes, significantly enhancing overall user satisfaction.

2. Sharing the message

Innovation is a process, and anyone might get lucky once. The real skill lies in being able to repeat the trick, to recognise that it can be a managed process which depends on more than just luck. For which we need a map, some codified representation of what we’ve learned about how the process works and what to do about it.

Which is good news for people like me — our role has been to try and make sense of the hundred plus years of research and the reported experiences of tens of thousands of people to detect patterns — make maps — of how the process could be managed over time. What to do — and what not to do, much in the manner of early ‘here be dragons’ guidance. We’ve come a long way; our maps of the process are well-documented in text books, consulting offers and even at the heart of an International Standard (56001) for innovation management.

3. Forecasting and back-casting

Smart players of the innovation game don’t just grope their way through the fog and hope; they make use of futures tools to help develop a strategy — a map of where to go and what to do next, which steps to take. It’s a two-step process — forecasting involves looking forward, imagining and engaging the help of others to make more than random guesses, weaving them into coherent pictures of future scenarios. But it also involves back casting — working out how to get ‘there’ from ‘here’. Where and how to start?

That process is called road-mapping for a reason — it’s all about making relevant maps to guide our journey (and our resource commitment) into the future. You don’t get to launch a major new piece of software or a radical alternative product by simply pressing the ‘go’ button — it involves careful planning of each key stage from exploratory research through to prototype development, beta testing, market launch, and post-launch support. Each stage has specific goals, timelines, and checkpoints, helping the team stay focused and aligned with their objectives.

4. Simulation and pivoting, updating our maps

Drawing a map in the abstract, without understanding the conditions on the actual ground itself, is not a good approach to navigation. On account of the fact that maps are not the actual territory, they are a representation of that reality. Plenty of people have commented on this problem, from Prussian general von Moltke with his famous ‘no plan survives the first contact with the enemy’ through to boxer Mike Tyson’s more succinct version, ‘everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face!’

So we need the ability to revise our maps en route, improve them and press forward in a mode which Rita McGrath calls ‘discovery driven planning’ — map-making on the fly. These days this principle lies at the heart of ‘agile innovation’ and the ‘lean start-up’ model. Innovation involves testing assumptions , learning from feedback and course correcting — the innovation equivalent of GPS saying ‘off route, recalculating’.

For example, Netflix leverages real-time data analytics (akin to a GPS) to continuously adjust its content strategy. By monitoring viewer preferences and engagement in real-time, Netflix can quickly pivot its content offerings, invest in new shows, and even decide on canceling underperforming series.

The good news here is that we have a rich set of tools to help our adaptive cartography — simulations, FMEA, pre-mortems, etc. — which allow us to explore and change course before we actually hit the iceberg emerging through the fog.

An extreme variant of such map -making is the idea of ‘escape maps’ — escape routes developed to navigate out of a crisis. For example Toyota’s response to widespread recalls due to safety issues back in 2010 was to develop a crisis management plan to address the problems, communicate transparently with customers, and implement quality control improvements. This escape map helped Toyota navigate through the crisis, restore customer trust, and enhance its safety standards. But it also provided a resource on which they could build in the face of future challenges , like the supply-chain disruptions caused by earthquakes.

Collaborative cartography

5. Co-operative cartography

Innovation is a multi-player game and in todays’ borderless digital world that’s become more relevant than ever. Open innovation is all about collaboration and consortia, finding or building an ecosystem in which all players bring something to the party and when well orchestrated can create emergent properties. The whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts. And a key piece of this puzzle lies in the shared maps which they use for their collective journey.

Such maps may be built around something abstract but compelling — a vision into which people can buy, something which focuses their collective energies and points the way towards Treasure Island with enough for everyone. Platform businesses offer a good example of such collaboration, where platform owners orchestrate the players across a multi-sided market. Such arrangements depend on having clear maps of where and how shared value is created.

But a big part of the shared value ecosystem story is the fact that the ‘rules of the game’ are made explicit and become the boundaries and geography of the game. In other words the map of where and how the game will be played out. That’s often an underestimated aspect of the innovation story but it highlights the key role of cartography. Who is making the maps which set out the context within which shared value might be created?

Amazon, for example might see a future for drone delivery and be able to articulate the. vision, engage the technology companies, recruit the pilots, etc. But that innovation will only work if a key cartographer — in the case the FAA — adapts their tight control over airspace to permit it. (Which incidentally they have just done; they can now operate a beyond line of sight drone delivery service)

Malcom Mclean’s revolution in world trade catalysed by his containerisation innovation might have run aground at an early stage. His voyage might have involved ships stuck in port if he hadn’t managed to find a way of working alongside the unions who were key cartographers in that context.

Mobile money across Africa is nothing special, it’s just how things work in that world, even as we still marvel at the power of smart transactions on our phonies. This leap-frogging to a new financial world connecting millions of people has been enabled by innovations like M-PESA and its lookalikes and has ushered in a quiet revolution. Over half of Kenyan GDP runs across M-PESA’s platfrm) — but this massive social innovation, bringing banking and financial services to the unbanked, wouldn’t have been possible without the active support and smoothing of the pathway played by the central bank. Their role as cartographers, supporting and promoting the innovation has been central to its widespread adoption.

Uber uses a topographical map approach to understand the regulatory, market, and technological landscape when expanding its services globally. Each city and country had unique regulations, market demands, and infrastructure challenges. By mapping these out, Uber can try to tailor its strategies to navigate through regulatory hurdles, optimize its technology for local conditions, and address market-specific needs effectively.

So maps matter in innovation — and the skills of working with them seem worth developing. In particular three key skills ought to be at the fingertips of anyone working in the innovation space:

Map reading — if there’s one thing we’ve learned in an era of GPS and navigational accuracy measured in millimetres it’s that the best maps in the world can still lead you into trouble if you don’t know how to use them properly. GPS has an enviable track record of leading strangers on to rocks or to other unexpected places, one of which Ulysses’ sirens or the Lorelei Rhine-maidens would be proud.

We need to learn to use maps intelligently, checking our position and adjusting, correcting course, pivoting with the map as a guide. But maps are not a substitute for thinking about and actively managing our journey.

We know a lot about the innovation process so whether you’re a start-up entrepreneur or a team inside an established organization, the journey to create value from ideas doesn’t have to be a random one. Importantly we have maps for many different contexts — it’s not a case of one size fits all — so there is guidance for innovators working in the public sector or not for profit world as much as the commercial world

Map making — we also need the skill of constructing storylines, roadmaps into the future which provide us with the key information at key stages on the journey. We can use maps which others have prepared but it’s also important to develop our own skills , just as our ancestors would have found ways to communicate what they were learning. Embedding key questions around which we need to explore and chart is a key stage in the evolution of any business model — it’s a story which sets out where we’re trying get to and what we’re learning on the way. We need this to engage others and recruit their questions, experience and insight — and if we succeed we can offer our maps for others. After all there’s a booming market in offering templates for business models which can be adapted and configured to suit…

Co-operative cartographyscaling innovation involves building and managing an ecosystem so finding who are the key cartographers, and where and when the maps are made or revised, is critical. Sitting on standards committees working out product specifications may not sound the most inspiring innovation gig — but those standards matter, they are the maps of the future game. Big bets get made on the way standards will evolve and become accepted — think VHS/Betamax or more recent Blu-Ray/ Toshiba HD-DVD and the billions that involved.

But standards are only one part of the story. It’s not just committee work, it’s about engaging with cartographers on many levels, drawing them in, getting their support, buy-in, insight and influence. Think of an ed-tech solution which could transform the learning experiences of millions of children in rural Africa — and then try and introduce that without the support of the relevant Ministry of Education.

Or try and fight some of the powerful interests in trade unions or professional associations. Maybe wrestle with the regulatory thickets associated with trade bodies or government departments. Battle with the rules and those employed to make sure things are done by the book. Doesn’t take long before you realise that most changes don’t take place on a blank canvas — they involve negotiating a way through all sorts of obstacles. For which geography it would be helpful to have a map — but even more helpful to have a guide, someone who could help smooth or clear a path.

Learning to identify and recruit cartographers to your value network is increasingly a key skill in scaling innovation for impact.

Confused Traveler

So (back to our homework question) can maps help us ? In plenty of ways; we’d literally be lost without them. But the real question isn’t so much about whether they can help us but rather how we can best equip ourselves to create and use them….

You can find my podcast here and my videos here

And if you’d like to learn with me take a look at my online course here

And subscribe to my (free) newsletter here

Image credits: Pexels, John Bessant

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.

Grow Your Business by Answering Two Questions

Grow Your Business by Answering Two Questions

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Two important questions to help you grow your business:

  1. Is the problem worth solving?
  2. When do you want to learn it’s not worth solving?

No one in your company can tell you if the problem is worth solving, not even the CEO. Only the customer can tell you if the problem is worth solving. If potential customers don’t think they have the problem you want to solve, they won’t pay you if you solve it. And if potential customers do have the problem but it’s not that important, they won’t pay you enough to make your solution profitable.

A problem is worth solving only when customers are willing to pay more than the cost of your solution.

Solving a problem requires a good team and the time and money to run the project. Project teams can be large and projects can run for months or years. And projects require budgets to buy the necessary supplies, tools, and infrastructure. In short, solving problems is expensive business.

It’s pretty clear that it’s far more profitable to learn a problem is not worth solving BEFORE incurring the expense to solve it. But, that’s not what we do. In a ready-fire-aim way, we solve the problem of our choosing and try to sell the solution.

If there’s one thing to learn, it’s how to verify the customer is willing to pay for your solution before incurring the cost to create it.

Image credit: 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.

Collaboration Being Killed by Collaboration Software

Collaboration Being Killed by Collaboration Software

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

In our race to enable and support hybrid teams, our reliance on collaboration software has inadvertently caused us to forget the art of true collaboration. 

The pandemic forced us to rely on digital platforms for communication and creativity. But as we embraced these tools, something essential was lost in translation. Last week, I watched team members sitting elbow-to-elbow spend two hours synthesizing discovery interviews and debating opportunity areas entirely by chat.

What collaboration is

“Collaboration” seems to have joined the ranks of meaningless corporate buzzwords.  In an analysis of 1001 values from 172 businesses, “collaboration” was the #2 most common value (integrity was #1), appearing in 23% of the companies’ value statements. 

What it means in those companies’ statements is anyone’s guess (we’ve all been in situations where stated values and lived values are two different things).  But according to the dictionary, collaboration is “the situation of two or more people working together to create or achieve the same thing.”

That’s a short definition with a lot of depth. 

  • “The same thing” means that the people working together are working towards a shared goal in which they have a stake in the outcome (not just the completion). 
  • “Working together” points towards interdependence, that everyone brings something unique to the work and that shared goal cannot be achieved without each person’s unique contribution. 
  • “Two or more people” needing each other to achieve a shared outcome requires a shared sense of respect, deep trust, and vulnerability.

It’s easy to forget what “collaboration” means.  But we seem to have forgotten how to do it.

What collaboration is not

As people grow more comfortable “collaborating” online, it seems that fewer people are actually collaborating.   

Instead, they’re:

  • Transacting: There is nothing wrong with email, texts, or messaging someone on your platform of choice.  But for the love of goodness, don’t tell me our exchange was a collaboration. If it were, every trip to the ATM would be a team-building exercise.
  • Offering choices:  When you go out to eat at a fast-food restaurant, do you collaborate with the employee to design your meal?  No.  You order off a menu.  Offering a choice between two or three options (without the opportunity to edit or customize the options), isn’t collaboration.  It’s taking an order.
  • Complying: Compliance is “the act of obeying a law or rule, especially one that controls a particular industry or type of work.”  Following rules isn’t collaboration, it’s following a recipe
  • Cooperating Cooperation is when two or more people work together independently or interdependently to achieve someone else’s goal.  Collaboration requires shared objectives and ownership, not just shared tasks and timelines.

There’s nothing wrong with any of these activities.  Just don’t confuse them with collaboration because it sends the wrong message to your people. 

Why this matters

This isn’t an ivory-tower debate about semantics.

When people believe that simple Q&A, giving limited and unalterable options, following rules, and delivering requests are collaboration, they stop thinking.  Curiosity, creativity, and problem-solving give way to efficiency and box-checking.  Organizations stop exploring, developing, and innovating and start doing the same thing better, faster, and cheaper.

So, if you truly want your organization to grow because it’s filled with creative and empathetic problem-solvers, invest in reclaiming the true spirit of collaboration.  After all, the next big idea isn’t hiding in a chat log—it’s waiting to be born in the spark of genuine collaboration.

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.

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

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of October 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 October’s ten most popular innovation posts:

  1. The Runaway Innovation Train — by Pete Foley
  2. How Leaders Make Employees Feel Respected — by David Burkus
  3. Innovation is Combination — by Greg Satell
  4. Why Modifying This One Question Changes Everything — by Robyn Bolton
  5. Acting on Strategy and Tactics — by Mike Shipulski
  6. Push versus Pull in the Productivity Zone — by Geoffrey A. Moore
  7. Next Generation Leadership Traits and Characteristics — by Stefan Lindegaard
  8. Humanizing Agility — by Janet Sernack
  9. Creating More Digital Value for Customers — by Howard Tiersky
  10. False Choice – Founder versus Manager — by Robyn Bolton

BONUS – Here are five more strong articles published in September 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!

SPECIAL BONUS – THREE DAYS ONLY: From now until 11:59PM ET on November 11, 2024 you can get the hardcover version of the SECOND EDITION of my latest bestselling book Charting Change for 40% OFF using code HARDC50. This deal won’t last long, so grab your copy while supplies last!

Accelerate your change and transformation success

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.

Don’t Wait for the Wheels to Fall Off

Don't Wait for the Wheels to Fall Off

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

When your most important product development project is a year behind schedule (and the schedule has been revved three times), who would you call to get the project back on track?

When the project’s unrealistic cost constraints wall of the design space where the solution resides, who would you call to open up the higher-cost design space?

When the project team has tried and failed to figure out the root cause of the problem, who would you call to get to the bottom of it?

And when you bring in the regular experts and they, too, try and fail to fix the problem, who would you call to get to the bottom of getting to the bottom of it?

When marketing won’t relax the specification and engineering doesn’t know how to meet it, who would you call to end the sword fight?

When engineering requires geometry that can only be made by a process that manufacturing doesn’t like and neither side will give ground, who would you call to converge on a solution?

When all your best practices haven’t worked, who would you call to invent a novel practice to right the ship?

When the wheels fall off, you need to know who to call.

If you have someone to call, don’t wait until the wheels fall off to call them. And if you have no one to call, call me.

Image credit: 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.

The Most Successful Innovation Approach is …

The Most Successful Innovation Approach

GUEST POST from Howard Tiersky

There are three primary approaches to innovation. In our work with large brands focused on digital transformation, we have observed that the most effective of the three is also the least common. Which approach do you use?

Approach #1: The Artist

“I create for myself. I hope my customers like it.”

Georgia O’Keeffe said of art, “Whether you succeed or not is irrelevant; there is no such thing. Making your unknown known is the important thing.” And this philosophy of creating from one’s own mind and heart, of bringing to the world your unique and individual expression, is a powerful driving force for many innovators. Steve Jobs was the penultimate artist innovator. When asked what type of market research he had conducted in creating the Macintosh he replied, “Did Alexander Graham Bell do any market research before he invented the phone?” He also said, “Some people say, ‘Give customers what they want.’ But that’s not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they’re going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, ‘If I’d have asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me they wanted a faster horse!’ People don’t know what they want until you show it to them. That’s why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page. Great art resonates with people–it inspires and moves them to action. This is true of Georgia O’Keeffe’s paintings as well as Steve Jobs’ creations. They create from their instinct and their passion, and their work has been wildly successful commercially. However, there is a key challenge with the artist approach to innovation: Are you Steve Jobs? How many Georgia O’Keeffe’s do you have on your team? Because for every Jobs or O’Keeffe, there are thousands of others who have followed their gut to create an endless myriad of technology projects that have not resonated. For each Georgia O’Keeffe, there are vast numbers of aspiring painters following their hearts but who never achieve commercial success. Now if what O’Keeffe says is really true for you–if success does not matter if the mere expression of your idea in the real world is sufficient to satisfy you– then this may be an effective path. But if you are seeking commercial success, the reality is that only a small percentage of the personal expressions of people’s hearts will reach out to and resonate with a mass audience. So unless you are an innovator with a proven track record of doing that, or willing to take that chance, this is a highly unpredictable approach to innovation. We often see companies designing products, be they physical or digital, by getting a small team in a room with a whiteboard. Or there is an executive who has a vision he has imagined for a product that he wants his team to bring to life. This is, in fact, probably the most common method of corporate innovation, and it very often fails.

Approach #2 The Researcher

“Give people what they want. What you want is unimportant.” – Pete Waterman, record producer
Commercial success in innovation comes from creating something new that resonates with the customer– that solves a problem for the customer or empowers them in a new and exciting way, like the Post-it or Uber. So the research approach to innovation involves simply asking the customer what they want and giving it to them. The classic focus group is an example of this; however, there are several problems with this approach to innovation. First, Steve Jobs was right: Customers often don’t know what they want. They may tell you what they think they want, but in fact, their real-world behavior after a product is launched is often inconsistent with what they have told you in a focus group. There is probably no better example of this than the disastrous launch of New Coke in 1985. Prior to the launch, Coca-Cola spent $4 Million (in 1985 dollars!) on conducting over 190,000 taste tests of different formulations to find the one that customers would like best. Based on that research they changed the taste of Coke and then spent considerably more on a massive launch of New Coke, only to be followed by massive public backlash and the eventual need to restore “Classic” Coke. How could research lead us so disastrously astray? We see all the time in our own work that when customers are asked for the features, they would like to see in an app or for ideas for new products, the results are often weak. Also, when customers passionately identify innovations they would like to see, it’s common to discover that those same customers don’t actually use the innovations they requested. In fact, customers like to be artists too, and they like to share their personal vision of what a product could be. That doesn’t mean, though, that they are Steve Jobs any more than you are, and they often have poor insight into their own future behaviors. This “researcher” approach in some form is the second most common approach we see taken to innovation projects. It can be successful to some degree for incremental changes. For example, if many users of your product are clamoring for a different sorting option in a reporting application, then sure, listening to their feedback and integrating those priorities is probably a path to incremental improvement. But that is quite different from wholesale innovation. In that area, asking users what they want rarely proves to be a useful activity.

Approach #3: The Research-Ideation Cycle

The most successful approach that we see used is what we call the research-ideation cycle, an approach that blends science and art. Customer research is core to this approach. However, the goal of the customer research is not to ask customers what they want, but rather to understand their current experiences, goals, and points of pain or inefficiencies. Uber effectively understood that the moment when a customer arrives at their destination and has to wait to get out of the car to deal with paying the driver was a small point of pain, that once removed, creates a far better experience. In the research-ideation cycle, we first create a detailed picture of the different customer segments and use techniques like ethnography to truly understand how they are accomplishing the tasks we are targeting with our innovation, whether it’s vacation planning, home decorating or rebuilding a diesel engine. Once that research is complete we can access our inner artists, but not for the purpose of self-expression, but with the goal of problem solving. In fact, creativity is usually at its greatest when a problem is brought into clear focus via detailed customer research and anecdotes. Ideation cycles involve inventing a number of solutions to the customer problems identified through the initial research. Once those ideas are generated, they can be tested with customers. But unlike the New Coke research, the goal of the testing is not to ask users what they think. It’s nice to ask because it’s polite, but it’s not the primary data source. Rather, we observe users using prototypes of our ideated solutions and use that data to gauge the effectiveness of our solutions in solving the previously identified problems. Very often we have partial success in initial rounds and use the insights from the research to further ideate ways to improve the solution. Then the cycle goes back to research, and so on between ideation and research until we have a solution that appears market-worthy. Even then typically there is a small market test or beta test, with research to understand the actual usage patterns, and the iteration process continues.

“You’re not supposed to give people what they want, you’re supposed to give them what they don’t know that they want yet.” -Diana Vreeland, Editor-in-chief of Vogue
When we understand the problems and challenges users face, creative teams can invent novel solutions that the users may never have dreamed of or suggested directly.

This article originally appeared on the Howard Tiersky blog

Image Credits: Dall-E

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

What We Can Learn from MrBeast’s Onboarding

Lessons from a Leaked Document

What We Can Learn From MrBeast's Onboarding

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

In the often murky world of corporate communication, a leaked MrBeast document has emerged as a beacon of clarity. Far from being your typical vague, jargon-filled memo, this onboarding document is a crystal-clear recipe for success that’s as refreshing as it is rare.

But first, let’s address the elephant in the room. MrBeast’s empire isn’t without its share of controversy. Reports of toxic work environments, unsafe conditions for contestants, and allegations of rigged games cast a shadow over his content creation machine and his leadership capabilities. These are serious issues that merit investigation and discussion. As a result, this post isn’t an endorsement of MrBeast as a leader, it’s an endorsement of an onboarding document that he wrote.

The Secret Sauce: Clarity Meets Innovation

What sets this document apart is its razor-sharp clarity and relentless focus on creativity. Unlike the vague platitudes that plague many corporate communications, job descriptions, and performance matrixes, this document clearly outlines expectations, success metrics, and the strategies and tactics to fuel continuous innovation.

This clarity is transformative for people and organizations. When team members understand both the guardrails and the goals, they channel their creative energy into groundbreaking ideas rather than second-guessing their approach and worrying about repercussions.

Expectations: Always Be Learning

The first principle is a clear directive: always be learning. In MrBeast’s world, this isn’t just about personal growth—it’s about staying ahead in a rapidly changing digital landscape. This commitment to continuous learning fuels innovation by ensuring the team is constantly exploring new technologies, trends, and creative techniques.

While some see the definition of A, B, and C-players as evidence of a toxic workplace, the fact is that it’s the reality in most workplaces.  It’s the absence of clarity, usually disguised by claims of family-like cultures that value diversity, that makes workplaces toxic. 

Metrics: The Start of a Feedback Loop

The focus on specific success metrics like Click-Through Rate and Average View Duration isn’t just about measurement—it’s about creating a feedback loop for innovation. Clear benchmarks developed over time allow teams to quickly assess the impact of new ideas and iterate accordingly.  It also removes the temptation and ability to “move the goalposts” to create the appearance of success.

Strategy: Structure Meets Creativity

After describing what success looks like for employees and how they’ll be measured, the document outlines a structured content formula akin to an innovation strategy. It provides a clear framework of priorities, goals, and boundaries while encouraging creative experimentation within those boundaries.

Starting with a step-by-step guide to making videos with a “wow” factor, the document also emphasizes the criticality of focusing on “critical components” and managing dependencies and

Far from the usual corporate claims that direction and “how to’s” constrain creativity and disempower employees, this approach creates a safety net that allows employees to be successful while still pushing the envelope of what’s possible in content creation.

How to Become Your Version of (a non-controversial) Mr. Beast

You don’t have to be a content creator, social media savant, or company founder to follow MrBeast’s lead.  You have to do something much more difficult – communicate clearly and consistently.

  1. Clearly define what success looks like (and doesn’t) for your employees and projects.
  2. Establish frameworks that encourage bold ideas while maintaining focus.
  3. Define objective success metrics and consistently measure, track, and use them.

This leaked MrBeast document offers more than just a glimpse into a YouTube empire; it’s a masterclass in leadership in the era of hybrid workplaces, geographically dispersed teams, and emerging cultures and norms. 

The document’s approach shows that innovation doesn’t have to be chaotic. By providing clear expectations and frameworks, leaders can create an environment where creativity thrives, and groundbreaking ideas can be rapidly developed and implemented.

When viewed in the bigger context of the MrBeast organization, however, the document is also a reminder that no matter how clear you think your communication is, you must be vigilant for those who claim that bad behavior is just a “misunderstanding.” Leaders know that no amount of views, clicks, or revenue is worth sacrificing the well-being of their teams.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

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.

We Are Starving Our Innovation Economy

We Are Starving Our Innovation Economy

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

The Cold War was fundamentally different from any conflict in history. It was, to be sure, less over land, blood and treasure than it was about ideas. Communist countries believed that their ideology would prevail. They were wrong. The Berlin Wall fell and capitalism, it seemed, was triumphant.

Today, however, capitalism is in real trouble. Besides the threat of a rising China, the system seems to be crumbling from within. Income inequality in developed countries is at 50-year highs. In the US, the bastion of capitalism, markets have weakened by almost every imaginable metric. This wasn’t what we imagined winning would look like.

Yet we can’t blame capitalism. The truth is that its earliest thinkers warned about the potential for excesses that lead to market failure. The fact is that we did this to ourselves. We believed that we could blindly leave our fates to market and technological forces. We were wrong. Prosperity doesn’t happen by itself. We need to invest in an innovation economy.

Capitalism’s (Seemingly) Fatal Contradiction

Anyone who’s taken an “Economics 101” course knows about Adam Smith and his invisible hand. Essentially, the forces of self-interest, by their very nature, work to identify the optimal price that attracts just enough supply of a particular good or service to satisfy demand. This magical equilibrium point creates prosperity through an optimal use of resources.

However, some argued that the story wasn’t necessarily a happy one. After all, equilibrium implies a lack of economic profit and certainly businesses would want to do better than that. They would seek to gain a competitive advantage and, in doing so, create surplus value, which would then be appropriated to accumulate power to rig the system further in their favor.

Indeed, Adam Smith himself was aware of this danger. “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices,” he wrote. In fact, the preservation of free markets was a major concern that ran throughout his work.

Yet as the economist Joseph Schumpeter pointed out, with innovation the contradiction dissipates. As long as we have creative destruction, market equilibriums are constantly shifting and don’t require capitalists to employ extractive, anti-competitive practices in order to earn excellent profits.

Two Paths To Profit

Anyone who manages a business must pursue at least one of two paths to profit. The first is to innovate. By identifying and solving problems in a competitive marketplace, firms can find new ways to create, deliver and capture value. Everybody wins.

Google’s search engine improved our lives in countless ways. Amazon and Walmart have dramatically improved distribution of goods throughout the economy, making it possible for us to pay less and get more. Pfizer and Moderna invested in an unproven technology that uses mRNA to deliver life-saving molecules and saved us from a deadly pandemic.

Still, the truth is that the business reality is not, “innovate or die,” but rather “innovate or find ways to reduce competition.” There are some positive ways to tilt the playing field, such as building a strong brand or specializing in some niche market. However, other strategies are not so innocent. They seek to profit by imposing costs on the rest of us

The first, called rent seeking, involves businesses increasing profits through getting litigation passed in their favor, as when car dealerships in New Jersey sued against Tesla’s direct sales model. The second, regulatory capture, seeks to co-opt agencies that are supposed to govern industry, resulting in favorable implementation and enforcement of the legal code.

Why “Pro-Business” Often Means Anti-Market

Corporations lobby federal, state and local governments to advance their interests and there’s nothing wrong with that. Elected officials should be responsive to their constituents’ concerns. That is, after all, how democracy is supposed to work. However, very often business interests try to maintain that they are arguing for the public good rather than their own.

Consider the issue of a minimum wage. Businesses argue that government regulation of wages is an imposition on the free market and that, given the magical forces of the invisible hand, letting the market set the price for wages would produce optimal outcomes. Artificially increasing wages, on the other hand, would unduly raise prices on the public and reduce profits needed to invest in competitiveness.

This line of argument is nothing new, of course. In fact, Adam Smith addressed it in The Wealth of Nations nearly 250 years ago:

Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.

At the same time corporations have themselves been undermining the free market for wages through the abuse of non-compete agreements. Incredibly, 38% of American workers have signed some form of non-compete agreement. Of course, most of these are illegal and wouldn’t hold up in court, but serve to intimidate employees, especially low-wage workers.

That’s just for starters. Everywhere you look, free markets are under attack. Occupational licensing, often the result of lobbying by trade associations, has increased five-fold since the 1950s. Antitrust regulation has become virtually nonexistent, while competition has been reduced in the vast majority of American industries.

Perhaps not surprisingly, while all this lobbying has been going on, recent decades have seen business investment and innovation decline, and productivity growth falter while new business formation has fallen by 50%. Corporate profits, on the other hand, are at record highs.

Getting Back On Track

At the end of World War II, America made important investments to create the world’s greatest innovation economy. The GI Bill made what is perhaps the biggest investment ever in human capital, sending millions to college and creating a new middle class. Investments in institutions such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would create scientific capital that would fuel US industry.

Unfortunately, we abandoned that very successful playbook. Over the past 20 years, college tuition in the US has roughly doubled in the last 20 years. Perhaps not surprisingly, we’ve fallen to ninth among OECD countries for post-secondary education. The ones who do graduate are often forced into essentially decades of indentured servitude in the form of student loans.

At the same time, government investment in research as a percentage of GDP has been declining for decades, limiting our ability to produce the kinds of breakthrough discoveries that lead to exciting new industries. What passes for innovation these days displaces workers, but does not lead to significant productivity gains. Legislation designed to rectify the situation and increase our competitiveness stalled in the Senate.

So after 250 years, capitalism remains pretty much as Adam Smith first conceived, powerful yet fragile, always at risk of being undermined and corrupted by the same basic animal spirits that it depends on to set prices efficiently. He never wrote, nor is there any indication he ever intended, that markets should be left to their own devices. In fact, he and others warned us that markets need to be actively promoted and protected.

We are free to choose. We need to choose more wisely.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credits: Microsoft CoPilot

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.

Why Small Innovations Matter Now More Than Ever

Searching for Silver Linings

Why Small Innovations Matter Now More Than Ever

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Do you feel like you’re drowning in a sea of bad news? You’re not alone. We’re standing in the eye of a storm of war, political division, and endless layoffs. In times like these, why bother with innovation when we’re using all our energy to survive and make sense of things?

I’ve asked myself this question with increasing frequency over the past months.  After hours of searching, querying, and reading to understand why you, me, or any other individual should bother with innovation, I can tell you two things:

  1. There’s no logical, data-backed reason why any individual should bother innovating (there are many logical, data-backed reasons why companies should innovate)
  2. Innovation is the only life raft that’s ever carried us from merely surviving to thriving.

If that seems like a big, overwhelming, and exhausting expectation to place on innovators, you’re right.  But it doesn’t have to be because innovation is also small things that make you smile, spark your curiosity, and prompt you to ask, “How might we…?”

Here are three small innovations that broke through the dark clouds of the news cycle, made me smile, and started a domino effect of questions and wonder.

LEGO Braille Bricks: Building a More Inclusive World

Lego Braille

You know them, and you love them (unless you’ve stepped on one), and somehow, they got even better.  In 2023, LEGO released Braille Bricks to the public.

By modifying the studs (those bumps on the top of the brick) to correspond with the braille alphabet, numbers, and symbols and complementing the toy with a website offering a range of activities, educator resources, and community support, LEGO built a bridge between sighted and visually impaired worlds, one tiny brick at a time.

How might a small change build empathy and connect people?


The Open Book: Fulfilling a Dream by Working on Vacation

The Open Book

Have you ever dreamed of going on vacation so that you could work an hourly job without pay?  Would you believe there is a two-year waitlist of people willing to pay for such an experience?

Welcome to The Open Book, a second-hand bookstore in Wigtown, Scotland, that offers “bibliophiles, avid readers, kindred book lovers, and adventure seekers” the opportunity to live out their dreams of running the bookstore by day and living above it in a tiny apartment by night.  The bookstore is owned and operated by a local nonprofit, and all proceeds, about $10,000 per year, go to supporting the Wigtown Book Festival.

How might you turn your passion into an experience others would pay for?


The Human Library: Checking Out Books That Talk Back

Human Library

If used books aren’t your thing, consider going to The Human Library.  This innovative concept started in Copenhagen in 2000 and has spread to over 80 countries, offering a unique twist on traditional libraries.  Readers “borrow” individuals from all walks of life – from refugees to rockstars refugees, from people with disabilities to those with unusual occupations – to hear their stories, ask difficult questions, and engage in open dialogue.

How might you create opportunities for dialogue and challenge your preconceptions?


Small Things Make a Big Difference

In a world that often feels dark, these small innovations are helpful reminders that if you are curious, creative, and just a bit brave, you can spark joy, wonder, and change.

How will you innovate, no matter how small, to brighten your corner of the world?

Image credit: 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.

Everyone Clear Now on What ChatGPT is Doing?

Everyone Clear Now on What ChatGPT is Doing?

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

Almost a year and a half ago I read Stephen Wolfram’s very approachable introduction to ChatGPT, What is ChatGPT Doing . . . And Why Does It Work?, and I encourage you to do the same. It has sparked a number of thoughts that I want to share in this post.

First, if I have understood Wolfram correctly, what ChatGPT does can be summarized as follows:

  1. Ingest an enormous corpus of text from every available digitized source.
  2. While so doing, assign to each unique word a unique identifier, a number that will serve as a token to represent that word.
  3. Within the confines of each text, record the location of every token relative to every other token.
  4. Using just these two elements—token and location—determine for every word in the entire corpus the probability of it being adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, every other word.
  5. Feed these probabilities into a neural network to cluster words and build a map of relationships.
  6. Leveraging this map, given any string of words as a prompt, use the neural network to predict the next word (just like AutoCorrect).
  7. Based on feedback from so doing, adjust the internal parameters of the neural network to improve its performance.
  8. As performance improves, extend the reach of prediction from the next word to the next phrase, then to the next clause, the next sentence, the next paragraph, and so on, improving performance at each stage by using feedback to further adjust its internal parameters.
  9. Based on all of the above, generate text responses to user questions and prompts that reviewers agree are appropriate and useful.

OK, I concede this is a radical oversimplification, but for the purposes of this post, I do not think I am misrepresenting what is going on, specifically when it comes to making what I think is the most important point to register when it comes to understanding ChatGPT. That point is a simple one. ChatGPT has no idea what it is talking about.

Indeed, ChatGPT has no ideas of any kind — no knowledge or expertise — because it has no semantic information. It is all math. Math has been used to strip words of their meaning, and that meaning is not restored until a reader or user engages with the output to do so, using their own brain, not ChatGPT’s. ChatGPT is operating entirely on form and not a whit on content. By processing the entirety of its corpus, it can generate the most probable sequence of words that correlates with the input prompt it had been fed. Additionally, it can modify that sequence based on subsequent interactions with an end user. As human beings participating in that interaction, we process these interactions as a natural language conversation with an intelligent agent, but that is not what is happening at all. ChatGPT is using our prompts to initiate a mathematical exercise using tokens and locations as its sole variables.

OK, so what? I mean, if it works, isn’t that all that matters? Not really. Here are some key concerns.

First, and most importantly, ChatGPT cannot be expected to be self-governing when it comes to content. It has no knowledge of content. So, whatever guardrails one has in mind would have to be put in place either before the data gets into ChatGPT or afterward to intercept its answers prior to passing them along to users. The latter approach, however, would defeat the whole purpose of using it in the first place by undermining one of ChatGPT’s most attractive attributes—namely, its extraordinary scalability. So, if guardrails are required, they need to be put in place at the input end of the funnel, not the output end. That is, by restricting the datasets to trustworthy sources, one can ensure that the output will be trustworthy, or at least not malicious. Fortunately, this is a practical solution for a reasonably large set of use cases. To be fair, reducing the size of the input dataset diminishes the number of examples ChatGPT can draw upon, so its output is likely to be a little less polished from a rhetorical point of view. Still, for many use cases, this is a small price to pay.

Second, we need to stop thinking of ChatGPT as artificial intelligence. It creates the illusion of intelligence, but it has no semantic component. It is all form and no content. It is a like a spider that can spin an amazing web, but it has no knowledge of what it is doing. As a consequence, while its artifacts have authority, based on their roots in authoritative texts in the data corpus validated by an extraordinary amount of cross-checking computing, the engine itself has none. ChatGPT is a vehicle for transmitting the wisdom of crowds, but it has no wisdom itself.

Third, we need to fully appreciate why interacting with ChatGPT is so seductive. To do so, understand that because it constructs its replies based solely on formal properties, it is selecting for rhetoric, not logic. It is delivering the optimal rhetorical answer to your prompt, not the most expert one. It is the one that is the most popular, not the one that is the most profound. In short, it has a great bedside manner, and that is why we feel so comfortable engaging with it.

Now, given all of the above, it is clear that for any form of user support services, ChatGPT is nothing less than a godsend, especially where people need help learning how to do something. It is the most patient of teachers, and it is incredibly well-informed. As such, it can revolutionize technical support, patient care, claims processing, social services, language learning, and a host of other disciplines where users are engaging with a technical corpus of information or a system of regulated procedures. In all such domains, enterprises should pursue its deployment as fast as possible.

Conversely, wherever ambiguity is paramount, wherever judgment is required, or wherever moral values are at stake, one must not expect ChatGPT to be the final arbiter. That is simply not what it is designed to do. It can be an input, but it cannot be trusted to be the final output.

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.