Category Archives: Innovation

Stringing Together an Innovation Story

How convergence and creative collisions fuel invention

Stringing Together an Innovation Story

GUEST POST from John Bessant

It was the Covid lockdown that did it. Got me into compulsive listening. As my physical world contracted so I spent more and more time taking voyages inside my head, carried along by music. These days the choice of vessels in my harbor is impressive; I can embark on a whole series of different journeys depending on my mood — jazz, classical, soft folky reminiscence or driving angry rock. But whatever the journey there’s a pretty good chance a guitar will feature somewhere in the mix.

(Confession; I’m a guitar player, have been since I was twelve years old and managed to persuade my parents to let me trade the trumpet I was learning as part of the school orchestra for a six string I’d seen in a shop window).

Even allowing for my bias and your many different musical tastes, you’d probably agree that taking the guitar out of our aural landscape would leave it a poorer place

And it would certainly be a commercially poorer one as well — the market for guitars is booming. It’s currently worth around half a billion dollars and is estimated to grow steadily. Covid-19 was an important sales agent, nudging millions of people to try and fulfill their dreams of converting air guitar playing to the real thing. Fender, one of the biggest names in the industry, had the best sales of its 80 year history during 2020 while James Curleigh, CEO of market leader Gibson, commented that during that year “we literally couldn’t deliver enough. Everything we were making, we could sell!”

But how did the guitar get here? And what role did innovation play in the process?

It’s an instrument with a long history — in fact if you take the idea of stretching strings across some kind of frame and letting the vibrations conjure sounds then we’re back at least three thousand years. There’s a stone carving of a Hittite musician entertaining at a Babylonian party in the Ancient Orient Museum in Istanbul and what he’s playing looks suspiciously close to being a guitar. It clearly didn’t take long for others to catch on the concept of the ‘chordophone’ (to give the technical term for a device which generates sound in this fashion). The Greeks and Romans had their harps and lyres, the Egyptians adding the lute, originally developed in Mesopotamia. And the Moors of north Africa have the oudh, an instrument with a lute-like body and a long neck, probably based on a dried gourd and later fashioned of wood. As it journeyed across to Spain it morphed into what we’d recognize today, a multi-stringed wooden necked device. Encyclopaedia Britannica has the origins of the Spanish guitar as something emerging in the 16th century, deriving from the guitarra latina, a late-medieval instrument with a waisted body and four strings.

Along with the lute, mandolin and other derivatives of the plucked instrument variety it became a widely-played instrument over the next four hundred years. Its popularity came partly from its versatility — it could sit center stage in an orchestral concerto but it could also accompany a lone balladeer or form the centerpiece of a fiery flamenco stomp. And partly from its portability — it was the ideal traveling instrument for the itinerant musician. You could find it in taverns and town squares, concert halls and at court and it spread far and wide, migrating from Europe with the early settlers to the emerging New World.


From the innovation point of view the guitar followed a classic pattern — plenty of experimentation with materials, number of strings, neck length and a host of other parameters in search of the right balance of sound and functionality. And then the emergence of a ‘dominant design’, the configuration which set the pattern, laid down the roadway along which the development of the instrument would travel in an extended period of continuous improvement. Most sources agree it was the Spanish guitar builder Antonio Torres Jurado who did this in 1850 with his invention of the fan-braced design. Bracing the hollow body with struts of wood meant it didn’t keep collapsing in on itself because of the tension in the strings and you could build a big enough body to give you the balance of tone, projection and volume which players required.

But by the end of the 19th century the guitar had come up against an increasingly frustrating limit. It wasn’t loud enough. You could have the sweetest, most lyrical tone but if you were trying to make yourself heard amongst the dance bands which emerged as the twentieth century dawned you had a problem. Innovation, of course, thrives on these conditions and a whole new breed of entrepreneurs began experimenting to try to make louder guitar. They explored many routes — making the whole instrument bigger (but more cumbersome), changing materials (like the steel guitars pioneered by the National company), and playing around with alternative sound amplification principles (like the resonator cone, a kind of dustbin-lid built into the guitar top which vibrates like a speaker and replaces the simple sound hole of the guitar).

This last was particularly embraced by the Dopraya Brothers, Slovakian immigrants to the USA who set up the Dobro company and gave their name to the guitar variant whose haunting sound instantly conjures the wide prairie landscape with its rolling tumbleweed in a thousand films.

Plenty of innovation — but no real breakthrough, nothing radical enough to bring a step change in performance. Until entrepreneurs began to borrow ideas from different industries and to import alternative technologies. As Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones expertly explained in a BBC interview looking at the history of the electric guitar, ‘all they did was put a phone in it….’ Then, after a trademark raspy guffaw, he added “But it was the right phone at the right time!


Electronics in the early twentieth century had already given us the telephone, the radio and the gramophone and it had become clear that converting sound waves into electrical impulses and then reversing the process offered opportunities for amplifying instruments like the guitar. Patents from around 1910 reinforce Richards’ analysis; people were putting telephone transmitters inside violins and banjos. By the 1920s hobbyists used the (by then widely available) carbon button microphones from telephones, attaching them to the bridge of their instruments. Unfortunately these had a weak signal and as you increased the sensitivity to try to make it louder the microphone picked up other sounds and generated the unpleasant squeal of feedback.

The breakthrough came in 1931 when George Beauchamp designed a one piece instrument, cast in metal and resembling more a frying pan rather than a guitar. Harry Watson of the National Company takes the credit for having built the design which qualifies as the world’s first electric guitar. The key innovation was the use of a device to convert the instrument’s vibrations into electrical signals which could then be amplified — an arrangement of coils of wire wrapped around a metal core and designed to ‘pick up’ the signal. The concept of the pickup belongs to Watson’s friend Arnold Rickenbacker; the idea worked and in 1932 the two of them formed the Rickenbacker company and in 1937 they were awarded a patent.

That breakthrough fired the starting pistol for another innovation race with established manufacturers rushing to bring imitations to market and entrepreneurs looking to exploit the new possibilities in new (and hopefully better) designs. There was plenty of innovation space to play in. Not least dealing with the main limitation of the frying pan idea which was that it was a lap steel guitar, designed to be played horizontally with the instrument resting on the knees. Whilst the ‘Hawaiian sound’ associated with such an instrument was popular it had its limits; Rickenbacker quickly came up with their ‘electro-Spanish model B’ which was designed to be played upright with a strap — the instrument we know and love today.

Some sought to move the new idea to scale through celebrity endorsement. The Gibson company was one of the biggest players in the rapidly-growing musical instrument industry; they launched their Electro-Spanish 150 with the backing of the celebrated jazz guitarist Charlie Christian and a price tag of $150 trying to create a Model T Ford machine.

There was plenty of pent-up demand in the market; with the expansion of the dance band era musicians needed to play louder. But the limits of the design were still there — even if you replaced the sound hole with f-holes or did away with it altogether you still had the problem of sound waves bouncing around inside a hollow-bodied instrument and generating unwanted feedback.

Enter a user innovator, one Les Paul. Already a guitar player with a big following on the country and western circuit he was also a tinkerer. And in 1940 he came up with a solution to the feedback problem — why not dispense with the hollow body altogether and make the guitar solid? He built the Log — a wooden post with a pickup attached along which he stretched the strings. Recognising that he might have trouble pitching his new design he disguised it by gluing two halves of an old Epiphone guitar to the wooden post to give it the familiar guitar shape. This was simply a cosmetic addition to reduce the shock factor; in terms of the sound it made no contribution whatever.

In classic user innovator style he wasn’t particularly interested in producing and marketing the device himself — he had plenty to do as a performer. So he took it to the Gibson company, reasoning that with their history they might be interested in a radical innovation like this. Gibson had built their success on (and took their name from) the ideas of an eccentric mandolin maker who revolutionised the design of that instrument in 1910, doing away with the round bellied Neapolitan model and replacing it with the flat-backed variety. Unfortunately (for them as it later turned out) their response was decidedly lukewarm and so Les shelved his project.


Innovation is often like a soup; market needs and enabling technologies being stirred together by various entrepreneurs and coming slowly to the boil. As it reaches the right temperature so a breakthrough idea bubbles to the surface in two or three places simultaneously. So it wasn’t entirely surprising that in another part of the country someone else was playing with a similar idea to Les Paul.

This one was taking shape in the workshop of Paul Bigsby, an engineer with a passion for two things, country music and motorcycles. He shared this with a friend, Merle Travis, another successful country singer who talked about his ideas for improving the guitar he played — making it easier to tune, capturing the sustain which he could get from a steel-bodied guitar but without the feedback. Bigsby built guitars as a sideline to his motorcycle business and was able to bring Travis’s ideas to life; together they developed their own version of a solid bodied electric guitar.

And meanwhile in another part of the galaxy, or at least further up the road in California another player was about to join the game. Leo Fender wasn’t a guitar player — his instrument was the saxophone. He was an accountant by training though his passion was electronics — he’d spent his childhood disassembling and rebuilding radios and enjoyed exploring the growing potential of the new technology. While working as a book-keeper in Anaheim he was contracted by a local band leader to build a public address (PA) system; it was a success and he was asked to build six more.

That nudged the entrepreneur in him; in 1938 along with his wife he opened a radio repair shop with a borrowed $600 — “Fender Radio Service”. He quickly built up a business repairing and servicing the amplifiers and occasionally guitars for the many roadhouse bands coming through. This was a valuable apprenticeship; through the many projects he worked on he developed a deep understanding of the typical problems and how to improvise solutions to fix them quickly. He was continuously prototyping and experimenting with new ideas and implementing those ideas in the next project which came through his door.

He wasn’t alone; in particular he shared ideas with another enthusiast — Doc Kaufman — who was a lap steel guitar player, with a day job working for the Rickenbacker company. The two of them played around with ideas and eventually launched their company, K&F, to build lap steel guitars; in 1944 they patented their version incorporating Fender’s own design for a pickup; Kaufman left in 1946 and Leo renamed the company Fender Manufacturing. He worked on their ideas further, coming up with a thin solid body electric guitar which would be easy to tune, wasn’t too heavy and crucially didn’t feedback in the way the hollow bodied machines did. Pretty much the specification which Merle Travis had brought to Paul Bigsby.

In 1950 he launched it as the Fender Esquire and then, having added a second pickup, renamed it the Broadcaster in 1951. The threat of a lawsuit from the rival Gretsch company forced him to change the name and so the guitar became known as the Telecaster. The new wave was about to break.

Fender’s skills weren’t just in electronics; he was a pretty good listener too. He picked up on plenty of feedback from customers in his service business and so instead of improving on the Telecaster for his next product he set about designing a new machine incorporating many of their ideas. This led to a guitar which built of the strengths of the Telecaster but which added innovations in pickups — 3 instead of 2, giving the player plenty of control via a 5-way switch. The result was the Stratocaster, launched in 1954 and about to change the world of music.

Its success owed a lot to timing; the growth of Rock ’n’ Roll changed the format of dance bands towards the smaller trios and quartets and the sound and capability of the machine lent itself perfectly to the loud driving style. (Fender also had a hand in changing the shape of the ‘back line’ of the band, displacing the double bass with his solid-bodied Precision bass, introduced quietly alongside the Telecaster in 1951).

The Stratocaster appeared in Buddy Holly’s hands on the cover of his 1957 album and around the world musicians began taking notice. In the UK Hank Marvin, lead guitarist in Cliff Richard’s backing band The Shadows, was one of the first to own one and their success with a strong of instrumental hits firmly established the new sound. Not least in the ears of a generation of youngsters who aspired to own one and make their own music; as one of them, Pink Floyd’s David Gilmour said, ‘(the Stratocaster) is about as perfect as a guitar gets’. In the hands of another, one James Marshall Hendrix, the machine was pushed to its limits — not least through exploiting the very feedback which Leo Fender, Paul Bigsby and Arnold Rickenbacker had worked so hard to try and reduce!


The response from the other guitar manufacturers was once again one of copy and develop, rapid imitation and improvement. Gibson were quick to pick up on the new trend but had a long hard slog up the learning curve to reach the point where they could master the new tricks of building solid bodied guitars with complex pickups. In 1955 they launched their new guitar and went looking for another celebrity to help them promote their new product. They recruited one of the top performing acts of the time, Mary Ford and her partner — Les Paul. The man who they remembered as ‘the guy with the broomstick with the pickups on it’, and whose ideas they had turned down a decade earlier. They made slight amends by naming the guitar after him — and alongside the Stratocaster it is still one the most sought after models and has been widely imitated around the world — not least because of the exposure given it by a rising blues guitarist, Eric Clapton.


The rest is (recent) history. The market for both professionals and increasingly amateur musicians grew and with it a rising tide of innovation. Variations on the basic dominant design established by Leo Fender, Les Paul, Merle Travis and others proliferated with different shapes, different materials, extensive improvements around the electrics and so on. Bringing us to today’s world where — unless the person in the next apartment is at the early stages of trying to master thrash metal riffs — those innovations have helped create the soundscape into which we can escape, whether as players or listeners.


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

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.

What Einstein Got Wrong

Defining Design

What Einstein Got Wrong - Defining Design

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

“If you can’t explain something simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”Albert Einstein (supposedly)

This is one of my favorite quotes because it’s an absolute gut punch.  You think you know something, probably because you’ve been saying and doing it for years.  Then someone comes along and asks you to explain it, and suddenly, you’re just standing there, mouth agape, gesturing, hoping that this wacky game of charades produces an answer.

This happened to me last Monday.

While preparing to teach a course titled “Design Innovation Lab,” I thought it would be a good idea to define “design” and “innovation.”  I already had a slide with the definition of “innovation” – something new that creates value – but when I had to make one for “design,” my stomach sank.

My first definition was “pretty pictures,” which is both wrong and slightly demeaning because designers do that and so much more.  My second definition, I know it when I see it, was worse.

So, I Googled the definition.

Then I asked ChatGPT.

Then I asked some designer friends.

No one had a simple definition of Design.

As the clock ticked closer to 6:00 pm, I defaulted to a definition from the International Council of Design:

“Design is a discipline of study and practice focused on the interaction between a person – a “user” – and the man-made environment, taking into account aesthetic, functional, contextual, cultural, and societal considerations.  As a formalized discipline, design is a modern construct.”

Before unveiling this definition to a classroom full of degreed designers pursuing their Master’s in Design, I asked them to define “design.”

It went as well as all my previous attempts.  Lots of thoughts and ideas.  Lots of “it’s this but not that.”  Lots of debate about whether it needs to have a purpose for it to be distinct from art.

Absolutely no simple explanations or punchy definitions.

So, when I unveiled the definition from the very official-sounding International Council of Design, we all just stared at it.

“Yes, but it’s not quite right.”

“It is all those things, but it’s more than just those things.”

“I guess it is a ‘modern construct’ when you think of it as a job, but we’ve done it forever.”

As we squinted and puzzled, what was missing slowly dawned on us. 

There was nothing human in this definition. There was no mention of feelings or empathy, life or nature, connection or community, aspirations or dreams.

In this definition, designers consider multiple aspects of an unnatural environment in creating something to be used. Designers are simply the step before mass production begins.

Who wants to do that?

Who wants to be a stop, however necessary, on a conveyor belt of sameness?

Yet that’s what we become when we strip the humanness out of our work.

Humans are messy, emotional, unpredictable, irrational, challenging, and infuriating.

We’re also interesting, creative, imaginative, hopeful, kind, curious, hard-working, and resilient.

When we try to strip away human messiness to create MECE (mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive) target markets and customer personas, we strip away the human we’re creating for.

When we ignore unpredictable and irrational feedback on our ideas, we ignore the creative and imaginative answers that could improve our ideas.

When we give up on a challenge because it’s more difficult than expected and doesn’t produce immediate results, we give up hope, resiliency, and the opportunity to improve things.

I still don’t have a simple definition of design, but I know that one that doesn’t acknowledge all the aspects of a human beyond just being a “user” isn’t correct.

Even if you explain something simply, you may not understand it well enough.

Image Credit: Misterinnovation.com

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

Innovation or Not – Liquid Trees

Innovation or Not - Liquid Trees

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

Innovation has become the driving force behind progress in today’s world. From cutting-edge technologies to groundbreaking scientific discoveries, we are continuously witnessing the power of human ingenuity. However, amidst all the revolutionary advancements, it is essential to question what truly defines innovation. Do we only consider groundbreaking and high-tech inventions as innovative? Or can innovation be found in something as simple as nature itself?

One such marvel of nature that challenges our perception of innovation is the concept of liquid trees. Unlike traditional trees, liquid trees are not rooted in the ground, nor do they possess a solid structure. Instead, they are composed of water particles suspended in the air, forming swirling, fluid-like formations. And while this might seem like a whimsical notion, it holds the potential to revolutionize our understanding of sustainability and environmental conservation.

Liquid trees, also known as aeroplankton or aeroplanktic organisms, are a prominent example of biomimicry – the imitation of nature’s designs to solve human problems. By emulating the way these organisms harness air and water for sustenance, we can develop innovative solutions for resource management and energy production.

One of the most striking aspects of liquid trees is their ability to extract moisture from the atmosphere. Just like traditional trees draw water from the ground through their roots, these ethereal counterparts can collect airborne water particles and convert them into a usable form. This unique trait makes liquid trees a potential solution for regions facing water scarcity.

Imagine a world where buildings are equipped with liquid tree-inspired systems that capture and condense atmospheric water vapor, providing a sustainable source of freshwater. Not only would this technology alleviate the pressure on depleted groundwater reserves but it would also reduce our carbon footprint by eliminating the need for energy-intensive water treatment processes.

Aeroplankton also holds promise in the realm of renewable energy. The flow and circulation of air around liquid trees are akin to those in wind turbines, presenting an opportunity for wind energy innovation. By mimicking the dynamics of these floating organisms, we can design wind turbines that are more efficient and less intrusive to the environment. Imagine harnessing clean energy from the gentle swaying of these ethereal structures, without the need for expansive wind farms blotting the landscape.

Moreover, liquid trees can serve as a reminder of the beauty and resilience found in nature. In an increasingly urbanized world, where concrete jungles replace lush green forests, we often lose sight of the wonders around us. The concept of liquid trees challenges us to appreciate the elegance and adaptability of nature’s designs and incorporate them into our own technological advancements.

Innovation is not limited to high-tech gadgets or intricate algorithms. It encompasses any creative solution that pushes the boundaries of what we perceive as possible. Liquid trees serve as a humbling reminder that sometimes the most ingenious ideas can be found in the simplest of forms.

As we strive for sustainable solutions and progress towards a greener future, let us not overlook the lessons nature has to offer. By embracing the concept of liquid trees and exploring its applications, we can redefine innovation and lead the way towards a more harmonious coexistence with our environment. After all, the true test of innovation lies in our ability to find inspiration in the natural world and create something truly extraordinary.

But There is Another Kind of Liquid Tree

Innovation continues to surprise us with extraordinary ideas that challenge our perception of what is possible. One such remarkable innovation in the field of sustainability is the Liquid 3 photo-bioreactor. Drawing inspiration from liquid trees and biomimicry, these photo-bioreactors take the concept of harnessing renewable energy from nature to new heights.

Liquid 3 photo-bioreactors, also known as algae bioreactors, capitalize on the remarkable ability of photosynthetic microorganisms to convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into valuable products, including biofuels and high-protein biomass. These bioreactors consist of transparent acrylic tubes filled with a suspension of algae, which are then immersed in a liquid medium.

The process of photosynthesis takes place within the tubes as sunlight penetrates, providing energy for the algae to drive their growth. Depending on the specific intent, the algae can be engineered to produce specific compounds or simply utilized to capture and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the most significant advantages of Liquid 3 photo-bioreactors is their efficiency in converting sunlight into energy. Unlike traditional biofuel production methods, which require vast land areas for growing crops like corn or sugarcane, these bioreactors can be installed in smaller spaces, such as urban rooftops or alongside buildings’ exteriors. This vertical integration allows for the absorption of sunlight from various angles, optimizing energy capture.

Furthermore, Liquid 3 photo-bioreactors have shown impressive productivity compared to traditional crop-based systems. Algae in these bioreactors can multiply rapidly, thanks to their highly efficient nutrient absorption and growth rates, resulting in higher yields of valuable biomass. Additionally, algae cultivation does not compete with food crops for arable land, making it a sustainable alternative for biofuel and food production.

The potential applications for Liquid 3 photo-bioreactors extend beyond energy production. They have shown promise in wastewater treatment, where algae can effectively remove pollutants and excess nutrients from water bodies. This approach not only cleanses the water but also turns a waste product into a valuable resource, as the harvested algae can be further processed for various applications, including fertilizer production or bioplastics.

Liquid 3 photo-bioreactors emphasize the interconnectedness between sustainable energy production, environmental stewardship, and economic benefits. By utilizing these bioreactors, we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, mitigate climate change by capturing carbon dioxide, and generate valuable by-products that contribute to a circular economy.

As with any innovation, there are challenges to overcome. Scaling up the production and implementation of Liquid 3 photo-bioreactors remains an area of active research and development. Identifying the ideal algae strains for maximum productivity, optimizing the system’s design and operational parameters, and ensuring cost-effectiveness are all key factors to consider.

However, the potential benefits far outweigh the challenges. Liquid 3 photo-bioreactors offer a promising solution to the pressing global issues of energy sustainability, carbon emissions, and waste management. By embracing this innovative approach, we can make substantial progress towards a greener and more sustainable future.

In conclusion, Liquid 3 photo-bioreactors intertwine the principles of biomimicry, renewable energy, and circular economy. By emulating the efficiency of natural photosynthesis, these bioreactors bring us closer to achieving a harmonious and sustainable coexistence with our environment – absorbing carbon dioxide and adding oxygen to urban centers equivalent to the impact of two ten-year old trees. As we continue to explore and develop these remarkable technologies, let us remain open to the lessons nature has to offer, using innovation as a catalyst for positive change.

It will be interesting to see whether either of these types of liquid trees catch on. I guess only time will tell.

So, what do you think? Innovation or not?

Image credit: Liquid 3


Accelerate your change and transformation success
Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.






Crossing the Possibility Space

Crossing the Possibility Space

GUEST POST from Dennis Stauffer

Innovators are those who push themselves to move from what’s currently possible to what they hope will become possible—if they can make it happen. Doing that means crossing the space—that possibility space—between the two.

It’s the space Steve Jobs entered when he developed the iPhone, and where Elon Musk ventured when he launched SpaceX. It’s the space Florence Nightingale stepped into when she invented modern nursing and hospital cleanliness. The space Marie Curie crossed when she discovered radioactivity. And, that Muhammad Yunus was exploring when he created microloans to support third world entrepreneurs.

It’s a space roamed by countless inventors, scientists, entrepreneurs, change agents, social reformers—and perhaps people like you. This possibility space can be treacherous. Failure is common. Many never make it across. But for those with the courage to try and the personal capabilities to navigate through it, it’s an exciting journey and the rewards are immense.
To innovate successfully, you must be willing to step into that space, and know how to make your way through it. That often requires innovation tools and strategies. But above all, it takes a certain mindset—an innovator mindset.

An innovator mindset is your ticket across this possibility space, and the compass you use to navigate your way through it. It’s a mindset that helps you decide what you need to pack for the trip and how to find your way past those inevitable obstacles. It’s believing in the value of imagination over knowledge, in the courage to take risks, in a clear-eyed assessment of the challenges ahead, and an openness to understanding the world in entirely new ways.

What possibility space would you like to cross? In your work and in your life? What are your dreams and aspirations? Are you ready to get started?

A video version of this post is included below:

Image Credit: Pixabay

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

An Innovation Rant: Just Because You Can Doesn’t Mean You Should

An Innovation Rant: Just Because You Can Doesn’t Mean You Should

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Why are people so concerned about, afraid of, or resistant to new things?

Innovation, by its very nature, is good.  It is something new that creates value.

Naturally, the answer has nothing to do with innovation.

It has everything to do with how we experience it. 

And innovation without humanity is a very bad experience.

Over the last several weeks, I’ve heard so many stories of inhuman innovation that I have said, “I hate innovation” more than once.

Of course, I don’t mean that (I would be at an extraordinary career crossroads if I did).  What I mean is that I hate the choices we make about how to use innovation. 

Just because AI can filter resumes doesn’t mean you should remove humans from the process.

Years ago, I oversaw recruiting for a small consulting firm of about 50 people.  I was a full-time project manager, but given our size, everyone was expected to pitch in and take on extra responsibilities.  Because of our founder, we received more resumes than most firms our size, so I usually spent 2 to 3 hours a week reviewing them and responding to applicants.  It was usually boring, sometimes hilarious, and always essential because of our people-based business.

Would I have loved to have an AI system sort through the resumes for me?  Absolutely!

Would we have missed out on incredible talent because they weren’t out “type?”  Absolutely!

AI judges a resume based on keywords and other factors you program in.  This probably means that it filters out people who worked in multiple industries, aren’t following a traditional career path, or don’t have the right degree.

This also means that you are not accessing people who bring a new perspective to your business, who can make the non-obvious connections that drive innovation and growth, and who bring unique skills and experiences to your team and its ideas.

If you permit AI to find all your talent, pretty soon, the only talent you’ll have is AI.

Just because you can ghost people doesn’t mean you should.

Rejection sucks.  When you reject someone, and they take it well, you still feel a bit icky and sad.  When they don’t take it well, as one of my colleagues said when viewing a response from a candidate who did not take the decision well, “I feel like I was just assaulted by a bag of feathers.  I’m not hurt.  I’m just shocked.”

So, I understand ghosting feels like the better option.  It’s not.  At best, it’s lazy, and at worst, it’s selfish.  Especially if you’re a big company using AI to screen resumes. 

It’s not hard to add a function that triggers a standard rejection email when the AI filters someone out.  It’s not that hard to have a pre-programmed email that can quickly be clicked and sent when a human makes a decision.

The Golden Rule – do unto others as you would have done unto you – doesn’t apply to AI.  It does apply to you.

Just because you can stack bots on bots doesn’t mean you should.

At this point, we all know that our first interaction with customer service will be with a bot.  Whether it’s an online chatbot or an automated phone tree, the journey to a human is often long and frustrating. Fine.  We don’t like it, but we don’t have a choice.

But when a bot transfers us to a bot masquerading as a person?  Do you hate your customers that much?

Some companies do, as my husband and I discovered.  I was on the phone with one company trying to resolve a problem, and he was in a completely different part of the house on the phone with another company trying to fix a separate issue.  When I wandered to the room where my husband was to get information that the “person” I was talking to needed, I noticed he was on hold.  Then he started staring at me funny (not as unusual as you might think).  Then he asked me to put my call on speaker (that was unusual).  After listening for a few minutes, he said, “I’m talking to the same woman.”

He was right.  As we listened to each other’s calls, we heard the same “woman” with the same tenor of voice, unusual cadence of speech, and indecipherable accent.  We were talking to a bot.  It was not helpful.  It took each of us several days and several more calls to finally reach humans.  When that happened, our issues were resolved in minutes.

Just because innovation can doesn’t mean you should allow it to.

You are a human.  You know more than the machine knows (for now).

You are interacting with other humans who, like you, have a right to be treated with respect.

If you forget these things – how important you and your choices are and how you want to be treated – you won’t have to worry about AI taking your job.  You already gave it away.

Image Credit: Pexels

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

The Eureka Moment Fallacy

The Eureka Moment Fallacy

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In 1928, Alexander Fleming arrived at his lab to find that a mysterious mold had contaminated his Petri dishes and was eradicating the bacteria colonies he was trying to grow. Intrigued, he decided to study the mold. That’s how Fleming came to be known as the discoverer of penicillin.

Fleming’s story is one that is told and retold because it reinforces so much about what we love about innovation. A brilliant mind meets a pivotal moment of epiphany and — Eureka! — the world is forever changed. Unfortunately, that’s not really how things work. It wasn’t true in Fleming’s case and it won’t work for you.

The truth is that innovation is never a single event, but a process of discovery, engineering and transformation, which is why penicillin didn’t become commercially available until 1945 (and the drug was actually a different strain of the mold than Fleming had discovered). We need to stop searching for Eureka moments and get busy with the real work of innovating.

Learning To Recognize And Define Problems

Before Fleming, there was Ignaz Semmelweis and to understand Fleming’s story it helps to understand that of his predecessor. Much like Fleming, Semmelweis was a bright young man of science who had a moment of epiphany. In Semmelweis’s case, he was one of the first to realize that infections could spread from doctor to patient.

That simple insight led him to institute a strict regime of hand washing at Vienna General Hospital. Almost immediately, the incidence of deadly childbed fever dropped precipitously. Yet his ideas were not accepted at the time and Semmelweis didn’t do himself any favors by refusing to format his data properly or to work collaboratively to build support for his ideas. Instead, he angrily railed against the medical establishment he saw as undermining his work.

Semmelweis would die in an insane asylum, ironically from an infection he contracted under care, and never got to see the germ theory of disease emerge from the work of people like Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch. That’s what led to the study of bacteriology, sepsis and Alexander Fleming growing those cultures that were contaminated by the mysterious mold.

When Fleming walked into his lab on that morning in 1928, he was bringing a wealth of experiences to the problem. During World War I, he had witnessed many soldiers die from sepsis and how applying antiseptic agents to the wound often made the problem worse. Later, he found that nasal secretions inhibited bacterial growth.

So when the chance discovery of penicillin happened, it was far from a single moment, but rather a “happy accident” that he had spent years preparing for.

Combining Domains

Today, we remember Fleming’s discovery of penicillin as a historic breakthrough, but it wasn’t considered to be so at the time. In fact, when it was first published in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology, nobody really noticed. The truth is that what Fleming discovered couldn’t have cured anybody. It was just a mold secretion that killed bacteria in a Petri dish.

Perhaps even more importantly, Fleming was ill-equipped to transform penicillin into something useful. He was a pathologist that largely worked alone. To transform his discovery into an actual cure, he would need chemists and other scientists, as well as experts in fermentation, manufacturing, logistics and many other things. To go from milliliters in the lab to metric tons in the real world is no trivial thing.

So Fleming’s paper lay buried in a scientific journal for ten years before it was rediscovered by a team led by Howard Florey and Ernst Chain at the University of Oxford. Chain, a world-class biochemist, was able to stabilize the penicillin compound and another member of the team, Norman Heatley, developed a fermentation process to produce it in greater quantities.

Because Florey and Chain led a larger team in a bigger lab they were also had the staff and equipment to perform experiments on mice, which showed that penicillin was effective in treating infections. However, when they tried to cure a human, they found that they were not able to produce enough of the drug. They simply didn’t have the capacity.

Driving A Transformation

By the time Florey and Chain had established the potential of penicillin it was already 1941 and England was at war, which made it difficult to find funding to scale up their work. Luckily, Florey had done a Rhodes Scholarship in the United States and was able to secure a grant to travel to America and continue the development of penicillin with US-based labs.

That collaboration produced two more important breakthroughs. First, they were able to identify a more powerful strain of the penicillin mold. Second, they developed a fermentation process utilizing corn steep liquor as a medium. Corn steep liquor was common in the American Midwest, but virtually unheard of back in England.

Still, they needed to figure out a way to scale up production and that was far beyond the abilities of research scientists. However, the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), a government agency in charge of wartime research, understood the potential of penicillin for the war effort and initiated an aggressive program, involving two dozen pharmaceutical companies, to overcome the challenges.

Working feverishly, they were able to produce enough penicillin to deploy the drug for D-Day in 1944 and saved untold thousands of lives. After the war was over, in 1945, penicillin was made commercially available, which touched off a “golden age” of antibiotic research and new drugs were discovered almost every year between 1950 and 1970.

Innovation Is Never A Single Event

The story of Fleming’s Eureka! moment is romantic and inspiring, but also incredibly misleading. It wasn’t one person and one moment that changed the world, but the work of many over decades that made an impact. As I explain in my book, Cascades, it is small groups, loosely connected, but united by a shared purpose that drive transformational change.

In fact, the development of penicillin involved not one, but a series of epiphanies. First, Fleming discovered penicillin. Then, Florey and Chain rediscovered Fleming’s work. Chain stabilized the compound, Heatley developed the fermentation process, other scientists identified the more powerful strain and corn steep liquor as a fermentation medium. Surely, there were many other breakthroughs involving production, logistics and treatment that are lost to history.

This is not the exception, but the rule. The truth is that the next big thing always starts out looking like nothing at all. For example, Jim Allison, who recently won the Nobel Prize for his development of cancer immunotherapy, had his idea rejected by pharmaceutical companies, much like the medical establishment dismissed Semmelweis back in the 1850s.

Yet Allison kept at it. He continued to pound the pavement, connect and collaborate with others and that’s why today he his hailed as a pioneer and a hero. That’s why we need to focus less on inventions and more on ecosystems. It’s never a single moment of Eureka! that truly changes the world, but many of them.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— 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.






Do you prize novelty or certainty?

Do you prize novelty or certainty?

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

When you follow the best practice, by definition your work is not new. New work is never done the same way twice. That’s why it’s called new.

Best practices are for old work. Usually, it’s work that was successful last time. But just as you can never step into the same stream twice, when you repeat a successful recipe it’s not the same recipe. Almost everything is different from last time. The economy is different, the competitors are different, the customers are in a different phase of their lives, the political climate is different, interest rates are different, laws are different, tariffs are different, the technology is different, and the people doing the work are different. Just because work was successful last time doesn’t mean that the old work done in a new context will be successful next time. The most important property of old work is the certainty that it will run out of gas.

When someone asks you to follow the best practice, they prioritize certainty over novelty. And because the context is different, that certainty is misplaced.

We have a funny relationship with certainty. At every turn, we try to increase certainty by doing what we did last time. But the only thing certain with that strategy is that it will run out of gas. Yet, frantically waving the flag of certainty, we continue to double down on what we did last time. When we demand certainty, we demand old work. As a company, you can have too much “certainty.”

When you flog the teams because they have too much uncertainty, you flog out all the novelty.

What if you start the design review with the question “What’s novel about this project?” And when the team says there’s nothing novel, what if you say “Well, go back to the drawing board and come back with some novelty.”? If you seek out novelty instead of squelching it, you’ll get more novelty. That’s a rule, though not limited to novelty.

A bias toward best practices is a bias toward old work. And the belief underpinning those biases is the belief that the Universe is static. And the one thing the Universe doesn’t like to be called is static. The Universe prides itself on its dynamic character and unpredictable nature. And the Universe isn’t above using karma to punish those who call it names.

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 Biggest Challenge for Innovation is Organizational Inertia

The Biggest Challenge for Innovation is Organizational Inertia

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

I often talk about organizational inertia being the biggest obstacle for innovation but if this is true for your organization what should you look out for? Here’s my take.

  1. Aligning with organizational goals and strategy: Innovation teams need to ensure that their ideas and initiatives are aligned with the broader goals and strategy of the organization. This can be challenging if there is a lack of clear communication or alignment between the innovation team and other parts of the organization.
  2. Gaining support and buy-in: Innovation teams often need to gain support and buy-in from others within the organization in order to move forward with their ideas. This can be difficult if there is resistance to change or a lack of understanding of the value of the team’s ideas.
  3. Overcoming cultural barriers and resistance to change: Many organizations have entrenched cultures and practices that can be resistant to change. This can make it difficult for innovation teams to gain support and buy-in for their ideas, and can even lead to resistance or pushback from others within the organization.
  4. Navigating organizational structure and processes: Innovation teams may face challenges related to the structure and processes of their organization, such as bureaucratic red tape or a lack of clear decision-making processes.
  5. Generating new and creative ideas: Innovation teams need to constantly come up with fresh ideas, which can be a challenging and pressure-filled task.
  6. Delivering results quickly: In today’s fast-paced business environment, innovation teams often face pressure to deliver results quickly, which can be difficult if their ideas require a significant amount of time and resources to develop.
  7. Communicating and collaborating effectively: Innovation teams often need to work closely with others, including other teams, departments, and even external partners. This can be challenging if team members have different backgrounds, perspectives, and communication styles.
  8. Operating within constraints: Innovation teams often have to work within the constraints of limited budgets, resources, and other factors, which can make it difficult to pursue new ideas and initiatives.

Overall, these challenges can make it difficult for innovation teams to be effective and successful in driving innovation within their organizations.

How to address this is very much related the specific situation of an organization and in particular the root causes they deal with.

There is, however, no doubt that this has to dealt with from the top down in order to release the full potential of innovation for the organization.

Image Credit: Stefan Lindegaard, Pixabay

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






Your Innovation is Dictated by Who You Are & What You Do

Your Innovation is Dictated by Who You Are & What You Do

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Using only three words, how would you describe your company?

Better yet, what three words would your customers use to describe your company?

These three words capture your company’s identity. They answer, “who we are” and “what business we’re in.”  They capture a shared understanding of where customers allow you to play and how you take action to win. 

Everything consistent with this identity is normal, safe, and comfortable.

Everything inconsistent with this identity is weird, risky, and scary.

Your identity is killing innovation.

Innovation is something new that creates value.

Identity is carefully constructed, enduring, and fiercely protected and reinforced.

When innovation and identity conflict, innovation usually loses.

Whether the innovation is incremental, adjacent, or radical doesn’t matter. If it conflicts with the company’s identity, it will join the 99.9% of innovations that are canceled before they ever launch.

Your identity can supercharge innovation.

When innovation and identity guide and reinforce each other, it doesn’t matter if the innovation is incremental, adjacent, or radical.  It can win.

Identity-based Innovation changes your perspective. 

We typically think about innovation as falling into three types based on the scope of change to the business model:

  1. Incremental innovations that make existing offerings better, faster, and cheaper for existing customers and use our existing business model
  2. Adjacent innovations are new offerings in new categories, appeal to new customers, require new processes and activities to create or use new revenue models
  3. Radical innovations that change everything – offerings, customers, processes and activities, and revenue models

These types make sense IF we’re perfectly logical and rational beings capable of dispassionately evaluating data and making decisions.  SPOILER ALERT: We’re not.  We decide with our hearts (emotions, values, fears, and desires) and justify those decisions with our heads (logic and data).

So, why not use an innovation-typing scheme that reflects our humanity and reality?

That’s where Identity-based Innovation categories come in:

  1. Identity-enhancing innovations reinforce and strengthen people’s comfort and certainty in who they are and what they do relative to the organization.  “Organizational members all ‘know’ what actions are acceptable based on a shared understanding of what the organization represents, and this knowledge becomes codified u a set of heuristics about which innovative activities should be pursued and which should be dismissed.”
  2. Identity-stretching innovations enable and stretch people’s understanding of who they are and what they do in an additive, not threatening, way to their current identities.
  3. Identity-challenging innovations are threats and tend to occur in one of two contexts:
    • Extreme technological change that “results in the obsolescence of a product market or the convergence of multiple product markets.” (challenges “who we are”)
    • Competitors or new entrants that launch new offerings or change the basis of competition (challenges “what we do”)

By looking at your innovations through the lens of identity (and, therefore, people’s decision-making hearts), you can more easily identify the ones that will be supported and those that will be axed.

It also changes your results.

“Ok, nerd,” you’re probably thinking.  “Thanks for dragging me into your innovation portfolio geek-out.”

Fair, but let me illustrate the power of this perspective using some examples from P&G.

OfferingBusiness-Model TypesIdentity-based Categories
Charmin Smooth TearIncremental
Made Charmin easier to tear
Identity-enhancing
Reinforced Charmin’s premium experience
SwifferAdjacent
New durable product in an existing category (floor cleaning)
Identity-enhancing
Reinforced P&G’s identity as a provider of best-in-class cleaning products
Tide Dry CleanersRadical
Moved P&G into services and uses a franchise model
Identity-stretching
Dry cleaning service is consistent with P&G’s identity but stretches into providing services vs. just products

Do you see what happened on that third line?  A Radical Innovation was identity-stretching (not challenging), and it’s in the 0.1% of corporate innovations that launched!  It’s in 22 states!

The Bottom Line

If you look at innovation in the same way you always have, through the lens of changes to your business model, you’ll get the same innovation results you always have.

If you look at innovation differently, through the lens of how it affects personal and organizational identity, you’ll get different results.  You may even get radical results.

Image Credit: Unsplash

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

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of September 2023

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of September 2023Drum 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 September’s ten most popular innovation posts:

  1. The Malcolm Gladwell Trap — by Greg Satell
  2. Where People Go Wrong with Minimum Viable Products — by Greg Satell
  3. Our People Metrics Are Broken — by Mike Shipulski
  4. Why You Don’t Need An Innovation Portfolio — by Robyn Bolton
  5. Do you have a fixed or growth mindset? — by Stefan Lindegaard
  6. Building a Psychologically Safe Team — by David Burkus
  7. Customer Wants and Needs Not the Same — by Shep Hyken
  8. The Hard Problem of Consciousness is Not That Hard — by Geoffrey A. Moore
  9. Great Coaches Do These Things — by Mike Shipulski
  10. How Not to Get in Your Own Way — by Mike Shipulski

BONUS – Here are five more strong articles published in August 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 three years:

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