Category Archives: Innovation

Struggling to Innovate? Try This Instead

Struggling to Innovate? Try This Instead

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Everyone is an innovator on January 1.

That’s the day when each of us resolves to do something new that creates value.

  • Start working out so I lose weight, look better, and feel healthier.
  • Stop smoking, so I live longer.
  • Turn off my computer and phone at 6:00 pm so I focus on family.

Only 20% of people are innovators on February 1. The rest of us gave up our resolutions and decided to keep doing the same things that create (good enough) value.

Your business is no different.

At the start of the fiscal year, you resolve to innovate!

  • Explore new offerings, customers, and business models
  • Experiment with new ways to get things done
  • Enter new markets

Then something goes wrong, and you divert some people (not everyone!) from innovating to fixing an operational problem.

Then the first quarter starts coming in below expectations, and you cut budgets to stay on track to deliver the bottom line.

Then something else happens, and something else, and something else, and soon it’s “February 1,” and, for excellent and logical reasons, you give up your resolution to innovate and focus all your resources on operating and hitting your KPIs.

Resolve to Revive.

Innovation is something NEW that creates value.

New is hard. It’s difficult to start something new, and it’s challenging to continue doing it when things inevitably go awry. Investing in something uncertain is risky, primarily when more “certain” investment opportunities exist. It’s why New Year’s resolutions and Innovation strategies don’t stick.

Revival is the creation of new value from OLD.

When you work on Revival, you go back to the old things, the things you explored, tried, implemented, or even launched years ago that didn’t work then but could create more value than anything you’re doing today.

Your business is filled with Revival opportunities.

How to Reveal Revivals

Ask, “What did we do before…?”

Everything we do now – research, development, marketing, sales, communication, M&A – was done before smartphones, laptops, desktops, and even mainframes. Often new technology makes our work easier or more efficient. But sometimes, it just creates work and bad habits.

If you are trying to make Zoom/Teams calls less exhausting and more productive, try to remember meetings before Zoom/Teams. They were conference calls. So, next time you need to meet, revive and schedule a phone conference (or a cameras-off Zoom/Teams call).

Find the failures

Most companies are highly skilled at hiding any evidence of failure. But the memories and stories live on in the people who worked on them. Talk to them, and you may discover a blockbuster idea that failed for reasons you can quickly address.

Like Post-It Notes.

While some parts of the Post-Its story are true – the adhesive was discovered by accident and first used to bookmark pages in a hymnal, most people don’t know that 10 YEARS passed between hymnal use and market success. In that decade, the project was shelved twice, failed in a test market, and given away as free samples before it became successful.

Resurrect the Dead

The decision to exit a market or discontinue a product is never easy or done lightly. And once management makes the decision, people operate under the assumption that the company should never consider returning. But that belief can sometimes be wrong.

Consider Yuengling, America’s oldest brewery and one of its old ice cream shops.

In 1829, David G. Yuengling founded Eagle Brewing in Pottsville, PA. The business did well until, you guessed it, Prohibition. In 1920, D.G. Yuengling & Sons (formerly Eagle Brewing) built a plant across the street from their brewery and began producing ice cream. When Prohibition ends, brewing restarts, and ice cream production continues. Until 1985, when a new generation takes the helm at Yuengling and, under the guise of operational efficiency and business optimization, shut down the ice cream business to focus on beer. TWENTY-NINE YEARS later, executives looking for growth opportunities remembered the ice cream business and re-launched the product to overwhelming customer demand.

Just because you need growth doesn’t mean you need New.

Innovation is something new that creates value. But it doesn’t have to be new to the world.

Tremendous value can be created and captured by doing old things in new ways, markets, or eras.

After all, everything old is new again.

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.

How to Lead Innovation and Embrace Innovative Leadership

How to Lead Innovation and Embrace Innovative Leadership

GUEST POST from Diana Porumboiu

Leaders are bombarded from all directions with advice on how to behave as leaders. It seems like we all know what it takes to lead innovation, at least in theory, yet the attention is mostly focused on famous innovators who oftentimes are the exceptions, rather than the rule.

What’s more, we tend to forget that the greatest, most famous innovators, with all their qualities and contributions to the world, are not necessarily the best of leaders. Great leaders who rarely make the headlines, if they ever do, are usually less controversial.

However, their lack of fame doesn’t diminish their innovativeness. That’s why this article wants to provide some insights into what it takes to lead innovation with the practices, methods, behaviors, and mindsets of successful innovation leaders.

As our previous article focused on nurturing innovative behaviors in employees, this time we’re down to some practical aspects of leading innovation at an organizational level.

Innovative leadership and commitment

McKinsey research sheds some light on what successful innovators get right, and how their organizations become high performing by committing to a set of essential practices.

In short, their survey revealed that the bar is rising among innovators, and during the past five years they have become more successful at innovation as they committed to a larger array of operating models. In 2016 high performing innovators focused mostly on vision and strategy. But In 2021 they pulled further away from competitors by extending their focus to new business models and to scaling their innovations faster and more effectively.

These are all interesting insights into how innovation practices support the growth of organizations. But what are they telling us about specific abilities and behaviors required to lead innovation? To better understand this, let’s look into some of the research conducted by Linda A. Hill, top expert on leadership, change and innovation, who paints a clearer picture of the specific qualities.

  • Adaptability

In times filled with ambiguity and uncertainty, it’s becoming more difficult to make decisions and guide others on the right path. Adaptability might come natural to some people, but others need to cultivate it through practice, exposure to different circumstances and activities. Developing adaptive behavior helps in taking bolder decisions, an essential aspect for innovation.

We’ve seen in other cases how innovators with strong convictions on their vision or new ideas are not very open to new data. This is tough to balance: maintaining your confidence and showing the way for the team, while remaining adaptable.

Practical tip: Instead of building a detailed project plan for an innovation project, try building a plan based around clear goals and time framed milestones, but leave room for the team to figure out the path to get to them.

  • Comfort with ambiguity

This is closely linked to the previous point because to become comfortable with ambiguity you also have to adapt and operate in a somehow hazy and confusing reality. This is very important especially in the early beginnings of innovation, when the fuzzy front-end stage of the innovation process creates a lot of ambiguity.

But as you might know, innovation means to dive in the unknown from time to time. As a leader you need to navigate the tough road of visualizing the goals for the team while admitting that you might not always know the way. At the same time, you want to get the team on the same journey and help them feel comfortable with that ambiguity.

Practical tip: Managing innovation is one way of becoming more comfortable with ambiguity. We created a free, in-depth guide on how to manage innovation which you might find useful. This is a comprehensive toolkit that can help you plan your strategy, build your processes, and drive more innovation in the oganization. You can find it here.

  • Curiosity

Curiosity pushes innovators to new discoveries. It’s also what fuels learning and change. As a leader you need to be able to learn and prepare for the future. Sure, curiosity, even more than adaptability can’t be easily measured or taught. But curious leaders should always ask questions, and not just any questions.

The best innovators understand things deeply and address root problems, not just surface level symptoms.

Practical tip: Whether you are naturally curious or trying to boost curiosity in the team, the five whys is an effective technique for getting to the root of underlying problems. The idea behind this technique is to ask “why” five times in a row, whether you think you previously received a good answer or not.

Viima Five Whys

  • Creativity

Creativity plays an important role in innovation, whether it fosters novel ideas or ingenious solutions. However, being creative is not enough to make innovation happen. Many leaders consider creativity an important skill for leading innovation. This begs the question: should leaders be the most creative ones, or should they work to enable creativity in others?

The answer lies somewhere in the middle, as creative leadership is essential in bringing clarity and purpose to the team. A creative leader can change perceptions and show the way. However, the strength of leaders who lead for innovation lies in managing for creativity. So as a leader you don’t have to be the source of all genius ideas but engage people at the right time to do the creative work.

To sum this up, there is a role for leaders in creative work, but not in the traditional sense of generating ideas and asking others to implement them.

Practical tip: If you want to spur creativity in your team try setting constraints and challenge the team to come up with solutions despite perceived challenges. Inevitably, the environment in which you operate will come with some constraints, whether those are operational, financial, legal or of a different nature.

Don’t look at constraints as negative things. Research shows that innovators usually succeed because of constraints, not despite of them. Brian Chesky, Airbnb co-founder & CEO believes “constraints create creativity” and without some of those he probably wouldn’t have done half the creative decisions that would lay the foundations for Airbnb’s remarkable success.

Practical steps to lead innovation

If leading innovation were that simple, we’d have more leaders and organizations excelling at it. However, as difficult as it might sound it’s not impossible and luckily, we have plenty of examples to learn from.

survey conducted by Forbes among 100 innovation leaders revealed that their success lies in actively trying to build and shape their organization for the future. This means that they actively challenge the status quo, experiment, ask questions, are keen observers and engage in conversations with people who are very different from them.

This discovery work of observing, learning, and experimenting leads to better decision making on less risky ideas with higher impact.

Start with the big picture…

The best innovation leaders aren’t just visionaries, who set big goals that show the way to the future. They also enable people to work through the challenges by removing barriers and empowering them to hop on the same boat towards that future.

  • Start with the strategy because any innovation program should be anchored to an organization-wide strategy. Just with the vision and without a tangible business case you don’t really have innovation.
  • Come up with a plan that stirs everyone in the same direction.

Many innovators, especially those who disrupt their industry, are not the best executors and sometimes they don’t have to be, if they have the right people on the job. To this end, collaboration and co-creation are essential, just as it is the empowerment of those who are knowledgeable to make important decisions to get to those goals.

A high-level plan which serves as a good example of how innovators set clear, ambitious goals is Elon Musk’s series of Master Plans, from 2006, 2016 and the 2022 one, to be released soon. These plans played an important role in Tesla’s success, giving a clear direction for the future illustrating how they are actually going to move towards fulfilling their mission of accelerating world’s transition to sustainable energy.

Tesla Unsplash

Of course, there’s more to a plan than an ambitious statement, but people need to be inspired, to feel that through their work they can change the world around them. That being said, an ambitious plan still needs to be flexible to some degree to allow for different ways of achieving it.

The cleverness of these master plans lies in their simplicity which makes them easy to understand and remember. They capture the big picture but still leave room for the team to find the best way of accomplishing them.

…then zoom in on the details

  • To achieve those ambitious goals, leaders need innovative teams, and to nurture internal talent.

With internal scouting systems organizations can develop the skills of existing teams. As is the case with innovation, if you can’t buy something, you have to build it yourself.

It’s beyond the scope of this article to talk about the winning strategies in the war for talent, but there should be a stronger focus on nurturing existing talent and creating the capabilities to innovate through talent development programs, learning opportunities, and a positive employee experience.

Innovation can come from various areas of the organization, and it all comes down to how employees are led to innovate. Former Volkswagen CMO, Luca de Meo managed to unify VW’s branding by discovering and nurturing the mutual sense of purpose of the employees.

He achieved this by involving employees in the creation of a centralized brand. For example, one brainstorming workshop was organized as a design lab to prototype, test, analyze and openly discuss ideas with employees from different departments and areas of expertise.

Engaging employees in innovation work can unlock the wealth of knowledge in an organization. Empowering them to innovate it’s even more powerful, as employees become innovators themselves. As Linda Hill also observes, people’s talents are not used to their fullest, but when it eventually happens, the results show up as well. In Volkswagen’s case, de Meo’s approach was fruitful, the brand moving up the global ranks from 55th to 39th.

…and take one step at a time towards that goal

The last piece to the puzzle, and maybe the most important is to take things one at a time while keeping your options open. There’s a lot of emphasis on the bigger picture, planning and strategy, but these won’t eliminate ambiguity.

So, the best way forward is to keep that vision in mind and help the organization move towards it. You don’t need to know each step in your path in advance, as long as you keep up a good pace and keep moving in the right direction, one step at a time.

Like with all innovative work, you’ll encounter challenges and things won’t ever go as planned, so be prepared to alter the initial plan. That’s why it’s not advised to put all your eggs in one basket. As John Carter explains, you need two interlinked systems that can help you select and grow the best products or ideas.

  • An annualsystematic portfolio planning process, tied to budgeting, and
  • An ongoing, agile, portfolio management process

Another thing to consider is the modular approach, which helps speed up learning. As Rita McGrath explains in this recent article, making your offerings modular you can begin to generate benefits early in the projects’ life. Put together, these two approaches are very helpful in building capabilities that provide economies of scale while still remaining flexible.

Leading innovation by example

In the following section we didn’t go for single success stories of leaders because systematic innovation doesn’t come down to one person. Instead, we’ll show at a higher level how leadership models enabled everyone in the organization to turn innovation into an everyday habit.

Netflix

Even though Netflix might go through a rough patch, we can’t deny its leading position as an innovator in the entertainment industry. From a DVD sales and rental company to a global streaming service, the current organizational structure at Netflix provides plenty of freedom and responsibility to its employees.

Netflix is divided in three main divisions and is maintaining the principles of total quality management: the functional team (CEO, legal, content communication etc.), geographical teams (in charge of local and international streaming) and the product teams who ensures the effectiveness of operations. This unitary form, the corporate headquarters direct strategies implemented in geographical divisions.

Viima Netflix Org Structure

  • The first division, the functional one, is led by Reed Hastings, CEO and Ted Sarandos, Co-CEO. They meet regularly with the R-staff, the group made of Netflix veterans and the general counsel.
  • The next in line is the E-staff group, made of executives who oversee different teams within the company. They each have a different area of focus, like platform engineering, regional marketing and content.
  • There is also a group of directors, below the vice presidents, who meet to review the current state of the company.

The flat organizational structure at Netflix encourages a culture of independent decision making, openness, high effectiveness, and flexibility. This approach to leadership is based on their business need of staying ahead of the curve by making decisions fast.

Apple

Apple is to this day one of the most innovative companies, and much of its success is attributed to Steve Jobs. However, in this case we won’t focus on his leadership skills, which are rather controversial, but on his legacy and how the company’s structure has evolved over the years.

What makes Apple unique is that it’s organized around expertise, rather than the traditional business units.

This requires open mindedness from senior leaders, to inspire, and influence colleagues to contribute towards the goals. Ultimately, decisions are made in a coordinated manner by the most qualified people. There are no general managers at Apple. Instead, there are expert leaders who need to have 3 main characteristics.

  • Deep expertise.

It’s easier to train an expert to be a manager than to train a manager to be an expert. So, at Apple experts lead experts. They have over 600 experts working on camera hardware technology, and they are led by Graham Townsend (a camera expert himself).

  • Deep immersion in the details.

In Apple’s case leaders should know the details of their organization 3 levels down and be able to push, probe and smell an issue and know which issue is important and where to focus attention. For example, they are very particular with the shape of the corners of their devices. Apple leaders insist on continuous curves, a small difference but executing it demands that they commit to precise manufacturing.

This relentless pursuit of perfection is what differentiates some companies. Even though overdoing it can lead to micromanagement and make feel employees like they are not trusted, you need to strike a balance between the two.

  • Willingness to collaboratively debate.

Having so many teams of experts requires a lot of back and forth and debate. An overly polite culture can hinder creativity, as people might not speak up because they don’t want to upset someone. So, creative abrasion is very important in collaborative work.

To develop the dual lens camera portrait mode, Apple had 40 teams of specialists working together and they disagreed, pushed back, promoted or rejected ideas and build on top of each other’s ideas.

At the same time, leaders should be able to make decisions even when there’s no data available. For this, they first have to listen to everyone. It might be that there is no agreement or reliable information that can help in the decision making, but that’s where good leaders excel and what Jobs did at Apple as well. He used his own judgment to make decisions, even though not everyone was happy about those. Otherwise, debates could go on forever, become bottlenecks or compromises that lead to substandard results.

Apple Unsplash

However, there are also challenges that come with Apple’s managerial structure, which is not very common in other companies. When organizations grow, their leadership also needs to adapt and scale accordingly.

For example, while the number of employees grew eight times, the number of VPs reporting to executives only doubled. To handle all the new responsibilities, they could no longer be immersed in the details. So, they decided to focus on a few core activities that bring most value and those that require less attention are pushed down to people who are trained to handle them. That being said, leadership models need to be flexible in any innovative, growing organization.

Conclusion

With the right leadership, processes and structures in place, innovation can thrive in your organization. As leaders is important to set ambitious goals which can inspire and show the way for your team.

Innovation can seem like an insurmountable task. Even though the details matter and aspiring to excellence is important, you always have to keep focused on the end goal and take one step at a time towards that. At the same time, keep an open mind, stay curious and inspire others to follow suit.

In the end, leading innovation also means building the capabilities, processes and environment that foster innovation and encourage others to become innovators.

This article was originally published in Viima’s blog.

Image credits: Viima, Unsplash, Pexels

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

Apple Watch Must Die

At least temporarily, because it’s proven bad for innovation

Apple Watch Must Die

by Braden Kelley

I came across an article in The Hill, titled ‘Apple flexes lobbying power as Apple Watch ban comes before Biden next week‘ that highlighted how Apple has been found guilty by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of infringing upon the intellectual property of startup AliveCor to provide its wearable electrocardiogram features in its Apple Watch.

Apple is now trying to get President Biden to veto the ruling (I didn’t know that was a thing) so that they can keep selling Apple Watches. In my opinion this is a matter for the courts and yet another example of how big tech (and big companies in general) far too often brazenly misappropriate the intellectual property of the little guys. So much so in Apple’s case that over the last 30+ years a popular term has emerged for it called ‘Sherlocking’.

According to the new Microsoft Bing (with ChatGPT):

Sherlocking is a term that refers to Apple’s practice of copying features from third-party apps and integrating them into its own software¹². The term originated from a search tool named Sherlock that Apple developed in the late 90s and later updated to include features from a similar app named Watson²³.

President Biden must let the courts do their job and not intervene if innovation is to thrive in America.

Apple has been found guilty by the ITC and should be forced to stop selling Apple Watches if that is what the court has decided. They should pay damages and redesign their product to design out the intellectual property theft. And, if they feel they are innocent, then they have an avenue of appeal and should exercise it.

But, bottom line, turning a blind eye to intellectual property theft is bad for innovation. We must encourage and protect entrepreneurship for innovation to thrive.

I’ll leave you with this clip from the movie Tucker to ponder on the way out:

And a trailer from probably the best movie on the subject of the struggle of the innovator against big business, based on the real life story of the inventor of the intermittent wiper – Dr. Robert Kearns, it’s called ‘Flash of Genius’:

Hopefully President Biden will stay out of it and let the courts decide based on the evidence.

Keep innovating!

SPECIAL UPDATE: On February 21, 2023 the Biden Administration elected NOT to veto the ITC ruling, leaving the courts to decide whether Apple is innocent or guilty.

Source: Conversation with Bing, 2/18/2023
(1) Apple ‘Sherlocking’ Highlighted in Antitrust Probe—Google Also …. https://www.itechpost.com/articles/105413/20210422/apple-sherlocking-highlighted-antitrust-probe-google-questioned-over-firewall.htm Accessed 2/18/2023.
(2) What Does It Mean When Apple “Sherlocks” an App? – How-To Geek. https://www.howtogeek.com/297651/what-does-it-mean-when-a-company-sherlocks-an-app/ Accessed 2/18/2023.
(3) Sherlock (software) – Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software) Accessed 2/18/2023.
(4) All the things Apple Sherlocked at WWDC 2022 – TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/13/all-the-things-apple-sherlocked-at-wwdc-2022/ Accessed 2/18/2023.

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.

A Guide to Harnessing the Power of Foresight

Unlock Your Company’s Full Potential

A Guide to Harnessing the Power of Foresight

GUEST POST from Teresa Spangler

Foresight is the superpower of the 21st century business world, allowing companies to see beyond the horizon and seize opportunities before they become trends.

Innovation has always been the driving force behind progress and growth in the business world. However, in today’s rapidly changing landscape, it has become even more essential to stay ahead of the curve and uncover major shifts and hidden opportunities to remain competitive. Companies that can harness the power of foresight and innovate in response to changing market conditions will be well-positioned to succeed in the years ahead.

So, what exactly is foresight, and how can it be leveraged to drive innovation? Simply put, foresight is the ability to anticipate and prepare for future trends and developments. It involves a deep understanding of the current landscape and an awareness of emerging technologies, consumer preferences, and macroeconomic forces. By staying attuned to these trends and developments, companies can stay ahead of the curve and take advantage of new opportunities.

Company leaders can take several key actions to tap into the power of foresight and drive innovation in their organizations. Here are a few steps to get started:

1. Develop a culture of innovation: To truly drive innovation, creating a culture that encourages and supports creative thinking and risk-taking is essential. This can be accomplished through a variety of means, including:

  • Encouraging open and transparent communication among employees
  • Providing opportunities for employees to share their ideas and collaborate with others
  • Offering training and development programs that help employees develop new skills and knowledge
  • Encouraging a “fail fast, learn fast” mentality

2. Invest in research and development: To stay ahead of the curve and uncover new opportunities, companies must be willing to invest in research and development. This could involve dedicating resources to exploring new technologies, conducting market research, or experimenting with new business models.

  • Protect your ideas is easier now leveraging the blockchain, sign up and protect your ideas at no charge for the first three and manage the features along the sprint cycles. Link

3. Foster partnerships and collaborations: Collaboration is key to unlocking the full potential of innovation. By working with other companies, universities, and organizations, companies can access new ideas, technologies, and expertise that would be difficult to acquire on their own.

  • Your best customers want to be your most collaborative partners. How are you engaging them in foresight and planning for the future?
  • Stay connected to customers: Understanding customer needs and preferences is critical to driving innovation. Companies should regularly engage with customers and solicit feedback to stay attuned to their changing needs.

4. Embrace new technologies: Technology is driving many of the significant shifts and hidden opportunities in the business world. Companies that are able to embrace new technologies and leverage them to improve their products and services will be well-positioned to succeed. Seems so simple these days, but there are so many new technologies.

  • Bring in experts to keep you abreast of new ways technologies are integrating
  • Explore a new technology in with a different set of filters – break it down and break down how you might use it to innovation.

5. Be open to change: Finally, companies must be willing to embrace change and be flexible in their approach. The world is constantly evolving, and companies that are able to adapt and evolve in response to new trends and developments will be better positioned to succeed. Are you tired of hearing BE OPEN TO CHANGE? I imagine so, it’s fatiguing all the change we’ve been through the last 4 years however, change in the world is accelerating, keeping pace can be daunting.

  • Ensure you have people with eyes on the future
  • Create foresight team and create scenarios of your future
  • Imagine the best possible change but also imagine the downside “what ifs”

The business world is changing rapidly, and companies that can stay ahead of the curve and innovate in response to shifting market conditions will be well-positioned to succeed. By tapping into the power of foresight and taking the necessary steps to drive innovation, company leaders can unlock new opportunities and stay ahead of the competition. So why wait? Start taking action today and seize the opportunities that lie ahead.

FutureForward podcasts (and videos) are now available on your favorite Channel:

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.

Unlock Hundreds of Ideas by Doing This One Thing

Inspired by Hollywood

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

What happened the last time you asked your team for ideas?

A. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

B. Got some ideas but nothing new or noteworthy

C. Got lots of ideas, but very few were relevant, new, or big

D. The clouds parted. The angels sang. The Ideas forever transformed our business.

My guess is you answered A, B, or C

(If you answered D, let me know because I need to learn how you did it).

While there are dozens of reasons why D did not happen, the most common one is this:

You asked for ideas.

You said, “Hey, I want to hear your ideas.”

Or maybe you got more specific and said, “I want to hear your ideas about how we can do better.”

What your team heard was “Hey, I want to hear your ideas as long as they’re the ideas I want to hear and pertain to the topics I want to hear about, but I’m not going to tell you the topics, so share at your own risk and may the odds be ever in your favor.”

So your team stayed quiet.

Good news, you can turn the odds in your favor if you do this ONE thing:

Give them constraints.

It seems counterintuitive.

After all, shouldn’t creativity be unconstrained?

Isn’t ideation all about blue sky crazy thinking?

Doesn’t innovation require us to unshackle ourselves from what is practical and dream of what’s possible?

No. No. No.

Constraints fuel creativity

You don’t have infinite money, people, or time. *

Which means you have constraints.

Don’t run from that fact. Don’t hide from it. Don’t ignore it,

Embrace it because it is what fuels creation, innovation, and growth.

No one knew that better than Orson Welles (and he was a pretty creative guy)

“The enemy of art is the absence of limitations,” he told filmmaker Henry Jaglom. “Economically and creatively, that’s the most important advice you can be given. You have limitations; you don’t have $ 1 million to blow up that bridge, so you have to create something else on film to produce the same effect. Instead of having money to hire hundreds of extras, you have to sneak a cameraman in a wheelchair through the streets of New York City and steal the shot, which gives you a look of much greater reality.”

If constraints can create Citizen Kane, imagine what they can do for your business.

Constraints demand focus

Think about the last movie you saw that was way too long. Or the book that could have been an article. Or the meeting that should have been an email.

When you have all the money, time, or resources you need, you can do anything and try to do everything. Unfortunately, the result is usually a bloated confusing mess that leaves your customers feeling like they’ve lost more than they gained.

But when you only have 2 hours or 300 pages to tell a story, 20 minutes instead of four hours for a presentation, or $10,000 to create a new product, you get crystal clear on what you’re trying to accomplish, prioritize what you need, and leave everything else behind.

Constraints cause tension which leads to choices

In The Offer, a fantastic series about the making of The Godfather, there’s a great scene in which the studio executive demands that Francis Ford Coppola cut 45 minutes from the film (and helpfully suggests cutting all the scenes set in Sicily). The reason? So that theaters can host five showings per day instead of four.

Two hours is a constraint.

Sicily is where Michael abandons all hope of a normal life.

The tension between revenue and story, business and art, is real.

Tension requires you to make choices. Constraints shouldn’t always win. But they should always be present.

Constraints create value

The next time you ask for ideas sprinkle in some constraints.

  • “I’d like your ideas for how we can use existing assets to expand into new markets.”
  • “How can we earn more money from existing customers without raising prices?”
  • “What can we stop doing so we can focus on high-priority work and avoid burnout?”

You’ll find that adding a few constraints to your request for ideas will be an offer your team can’t refuse.

*If you do have unlimited people, money, and time, please let me know. I’d love to talk to you.

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.

Latest Innovation Management Research Revealed

The Latest Read on the Evolution of Innovation Management

by Braden Kelley

Recently I had the opportunity to get a preview of InnoLead’s latest research report sponsored by KPMG. The report is now available to members, and I would be really interested to hear your thoughts on its findings:

Benchmarking Innovation Impact 2023

Please let me know where you agree and where you disagree by sounding off in the comments below or over on Twitter (@innovate).

Here are some of my key takeaways after rifling through the report:

1. A shift from transformational innovation to incremental innovation

There are several comparisons of data gathered for this report to data gathered for a previous edition in 2020. One might think that perhaps between 2020 much of the low hanging innovation fruit might have been picked and that companies might be shifting more of their innovation attention towards transformational/radical/disruptive innovation, but the report shows that the opposite is true. Check out the interactive chart here:

The data shows that between 2020 and 2023 respondents have shifted their mix of incremental, adjacent and transformational innovation away from transformational innovation and towards incremental and adjacent.

Some of other areas that you will find in the report include:

  • Team Characteristics
  • Budget & Resources
  • Collaboration & Spaces
  • Focus & Activities
  • Challenges & Enablers

2. The Greatest Innovation Challenges are somewhat predictable

Both of these embedded graphics have tabs that you can click back and forth between to compare the two data sets. In this case we’re comparing large and medium size organizations versus small organizations. There are few surprises here, other than the fact that politics/turf war/alignment and lack of budget are top of the list for organizations of all sizes.

3. Five Other Key Observations From Elsewhere in the Report

  • The vast majority of innovation work does not happen in person
  • Most innovation teams consist of people that could be counted on one or two hands
  • Most innovation budgets are set annually – reducing the ability of organizations to respond to new insights and technologies quickly
  • Organizations are more likely to engage in innovation training and internal idea challenges than running an innovation lab or working with accelerators
  • Leadership support continues to be the top enabler for innovation success

All of the detail, and many more insights live within the pages of the Benchmarking Innovation Impact 2023 report.

For those of you who have already read the report, where did you agree and where did you disagree with the findings?

And for those of you who haven’t had a look at it, you can download the report on the linked name above.

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.

Delivering Innovation

How the History of Mail Order Can Help Us Manage Innovation at Scale

Delivering innovation

GUEST POST from John Bessant

2022 was a record year for home delivery of parcels and packages. After the Covid-19 lockdowns the idea of remote shopping became an even bigger reality and changed the behavior patterns of millions. It’s a habit which is hard to break — even when there are increasing disturbances in the delivery end of things like strikes and negative publicity surrounding how packages are actually handled and delivered. Estimates of the market size for this activity vary widely but suggest that it is worth close to $500bn worldwide.

But where did this revolution begin and what’s the innovation history behind remote retailing? For that we need to go back a couple of hundred years and locate ourselves in the beautiful hills of Powys in Wales. In the valley alongside the river Severn is the small town of Newtown, a market center since the 13th century. And in 1856 the home of Pryce Jones, a draper’s assistant who rose to take over the business in which he worked. And for which he had big plans.

He renamed the company the Royal Welsh Warehouse and specialized in selling Welsh flannel. His vision grew out of a belief in the wonderful powers of the soft warm fabric crafted from wool from the sheep he could see on the hillsides all around him. But it was also sharply focused on the potential size of that market — if he could only grow it. Which he did courtesy of two key enabling innovations which reached sufficient maturity to give him the channels to reach his imagined global market.

The channels were the postal system and the railways. Neither was new by this time but they were now coming of age — and enabling hitherto unrealizable dreams to take shape. Back in 1654 Oliver Cromwell had established the idea of a state postal system but it was another 30 years before a reliable system began to operate around the city of London. And another hundred years before Parliament authorized the creation of ‘Penny Posts’ in any town or city; while the idea grew in popularity it was still expensive and local in impact. It wasn’t until the major reforms of the Post Office in 1840 that the idea of a Uniform Penny Post was established, facilitating the safe, speedy and cheap conveyance of letters. With it came the first pre-payment in the form of postage stamps (beginning with the famous Penny Black).

Pryce Jones was quick to spot the possibilities in the newly-emerging postal system and began offering his wares via mail order. The offer was simple; place your order via mail and it will be delivered the next day (effectively anticipating Amazon’s Prime service by 150 years and offering faster delivery!). To explain to his market what he had to offer he developed an illustrated catalogue from which they could choose what they wanted; he launched this in 1861.

He was able to fulfil this delivery promise because the railways had also come of age; from the ‘Rocket’ which George Stephenson demonstrated in 1829 the idea of modern railway network had developed rapidly. The railway came to Newtown and Jones was quick to exploit its possibilities, building a warehouse next to the station and opening his mail order business alongside the post office. He expanded several times and in 1879, he built the Royal Welsh Warehouse, a tall red brick building in the centre of Newtown which still stands today.

His idea paid off; within months his business had started to grow and by the 1880s he had an international operation, counting amongst his patrons included the royal houses of Austria, Britain, Denmark, Germany, Hanover, Italy, Naples, and Russia. Valuable customers not only for their purchases but also for their implicit endorsement. Because Jones wasn’t just skilled at utilising new channels; he also played the role of ‘conveyor’, someone actively encouraging and promoting the use of the new business model along these channels. His mail order catalogue wasn’t simply a price list of items, it was a form of storytelling, complete with pictures and expansive descriptions. He understood the principles of marketing, the need to get consumers to buy into a vision of something which they wanted — and then he was able to fulfil that demand.

(He was also a gifted product innovator; amongst other things he is credited with the invention of the sleeping bag which he patented in 1876 under the name of the Euklisia Rug. He exported the product around the world, at one point landing a contract with the Russian Army for 60,000 rugs.)

Pryce Jones wasn’t alone; like so many innovations the idea of mail order retailing came to several people independently and around the same time, reflecting the changing environment and the enabling technologies. For example in Austria the Thonet family began selling their furniture in 1859 using a mail order catalogue and taking advantage of postal and transport innovations. In fact Pryce Jones’ model was predated by the US luxury goods company Tiffany’s who in 1845 launched their ‘Blue Book’ — arguably the world’s first mail order catalogue though targeted at a very small, select (and wealthy) market.

It wasn’t long before other entrepreneurs began to see the possibilities beyond extending the reach into new markets for particular products. They realised that there was a second side to the new market-place — the suppliers. These days we’re used to seeing examples of ‘platform’ businesses everywhere we look — just glance at your smart-phone to see the array of apps (representing goods and services) being offered across the platform of its shiny screen. But it was 150 years ago that this kind of business model first emerged.

In 1872, Aaron Montgomery Ward from Chicago started his own single-page mail order catalogue; it listed 163 items for sale. He’s credited amongst other things with coining the sales slogan ‘satisfaction guaranteed or your money back!’ The model worked; ten years later the ‘Wish book’ catalogue listed over 10,000 items. Most important was the fact that Ward didn’t manufacture many of these; he effectively created the platform across which the market in multiple goods and services could operate.

In doing so he paved the way for many others spotting and exploiting a similar opportunity. For example in Canada one of the largest department stores was the Eaton Company originally founded in 1869 to sell dry goods, backed by a growing network of factories.

Eaton Company Catalog

Timothy Eaton saw the possibilities in mail order and in 1884 released its 32 page catalogue. He expressed his vision of a network stretching across the sub-continent of Canada in a note accompany the catalogue; “This catalogue is destined to go wherever the maple leaf grows, throughout the vast Dominion. We have the facilities for filling mail orders satisfactorily, no matter how far the letter has to come and the goods have to go.”

And down in North Redwood, Minnesota Richard Warren Sears , a railroad services agent. began a sideline business by purchasing a batch of watches which had been refused delivery and selling them on to local people. In 1886, he used the profits he earned from it to set up a mail-order business selling watches as R.W. Sears Watch Company. That year he met a watch repairman named Alvah Curtis Roebuck and in 1887 the two of them relocated their business to Chicago. In 1888 they launched a printed catalogue offering a range of luxury goods like watches and jewelry; by 1892 this had grown to a 322 page catalogue which included sewing machines, sporting goods, musical instruments, saddles, firearms, buggies, bicycles, baby carriages, and some clothing.

Sears Roebuck

What Sears and Roebuck (and a growing number of others) were doing was developing the new business model of a platform, using the catalogue as the focal point across which remote retailing could expand. But this wasn’t simply a matter of printing and distributing a catalogue; what they were doing was mastering the art of building an ecosystem for retail innovation. They recognized that simply advertising a wide range of products and services to an expectant public would be a very fast way of losing money and reputation. In order to make the system work they needed to pull together a network and get it working to deliver ‘emergent properties’ — where the whole offered more than the sum of the parts.

Making remote retailing work meant finding ways to procure (or manufacture) a wide range of products and then holding them in a warehouse so they are available for quick delivery. But holding stock takes up space and costs money so the trick is to manage the logistics of sales forecasting, order processing and stockholding, plus being able to ensure rapid and reliable delivery. Which places emphasis on reliable channels — as Pryce Jones discovered.

And underneath this web of suppliers and deliverers is the challenge of cash flow — how to ensure enough money comes back into the system fast enough to cover costs and return a profit which helps keep the supply side engaged. New models for financing and payment began to emerge — not least the concept of paying cash on delivery.

The model expanded throughout the world and was often at the heart of a move from remote shopping to direct retail. The origins of the 20th century department store include a sizeable crossover — for example Kastner & Öhler was the first mail order business in Central Europe. The company was founded in 1873 in Austria, releasing its first mail order catalogue in 1885; as it grew it opened its first department store in 1894 and went on the become one of the household names in European retailing.

Mail order was a powerful business model which worked well during most ot the 20th century — but as we’ve learned so often about innovation, nothing lasts forever. New developments opened up new possibilities and it is not always the existing players who are best placed or able to exploit them. In the early 1980s a new channel began to appear — the internet. It opened up not only new opportunities in terms of potential reach, mirroring what Pryce Jones had seen in the emergence of uniform postal systems a century before. But it also changed the underlying thinking behind some of the core warehousing and logistics underpinning the mail order model.

Jeff Bezos was aware of the opportunity and had created a list of possible sectors to target with an internet-based model. He chose books, and quickly realized that he could not only reach a huge market via this new channel but he could also service it without the high costs of actually warehousing and distributing the books. He recognized the ‘long tail’ possibilities; with his model he could reach people with highly specific needs and connect them to suppliers who could meet that need. He also saw that the underlying business model was available to anyone — the advantages would come to those who could scale early and build a platform. As the major bookseller Barnes and Noble pointed out in their submission to legal authorities in their lawsuit of 1997Amazon was not a bookseller at all, it was a book broker.

Where Amazon and others paved the way for a new model to emerge, putting the platform kind of business on steroids, others were slower to recognise and adapt. The German firm Quelle had grown since its founding in 1927 to become one of the biggest mail order operations in Europe, with a dedicated logistics and warehousing operation near the town of Fürth in Bavaria. It was, along with Tempelhof airport in Berlin, one of the largest industrial sites in Europe stretching over nearly 7 hectares. But a failure to adapt fast enough to the rapid changes being brought about through internet retailing meant that by 2006 it collapsed into bankruptcy. All that remains today is the 90m high Quelle-Turm (Quelle Tower) built in 1964 and now preserved as a landmark to a different industrial era.

One of the features of the model Pryce Jones developed was the stimulus it gave to local producers, enabling the region around Newtown to prosper with new businesses. And something very similar has happened with the internet-driven mail order business built across the huge Alibaba platform in China. In 2003 Jack Ma launched the idea of a Taobao marketplace where people could trade goods and services using the ability of the platform to reach a large and distributed market and display content in rich and interesting formats.

This model is comprised primarily of small businesses but has grown to be the largest digital retail platform in the country and has spawned many ‘Taobao villages’ — areas where over 10% of the population is engaged in online retailing. It has had a huge impact on the rural economy; by August 2019 there were nearly 4500 Taobao villages in 25 provinces and estimates suggest up to half of the rural population has benefitted from this. It is equivalent to around 600,000 small shops and trading businesses employing around 10 million people with an economic value of around $195 billion worth of e-commerce sales.

The story is of course not over. With the rising expectations of a growing market for instant delivery has come a challenge and opportunity around the ‘last mile’ challenge — how to move from the digital world to physical delivery of products. And whilst there are many major traditional logistics players now operating in this space there are challenges on the horizon — for example drone delivery or even 3-D printing of a growing range of physical products. The virtualisation process has only just begun though it may still be a while before the Welsh flannel beloved of Pryce Jones emerges spinning out of a 3-D wool printer in our homes.

But perhaps the best kept secret is the one shrouded in Arctic mists and dating back hundreds of years. Somehow a single enterprise (the mysterious S. Claus operation) has managed the challenge of reliable overnight delivery on a global basis to millions of expectant children; there are clearly lessons still to be learned around wish fulfilment innovation.

You can also hear this as a podcast or watch it as a video.

If you’d like more songs, stories and other resources on the innovation theme, check out my website or listen to my podcast. And if you’d like to learn with me take a look at my online course here

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons, Unsplash

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

The Ultimate Guide to the Phase-Gate Process

The Ultimate Guide to the Phase-Gate Process

GUEST POST from Dainora Jociute

While improvisation might bring the zest to a comedy performance or to your Saturday night’s Bolognese sauce, in the world of innovation a systematic approach is the way to go. And the zest here is a fitting and well-thought-through innovation management process.

It has been a hot minute since we last covered the topic. So, for the New Year, we will dust off our knowledge and insights and share updated guides to innovation management techniques.

In this guide, we will take a deep dive into the Phase-Gate process, arguably one of the best-known innovation management techniques. What is it, and why it might be just the right approach to innovation management for your organization? Let’s jump right into it.

What is the Phase-Gate Process?

A more linear, sequential approach such as the Phase-Gate process to product innovation and management isn’t all that new.

Already in the mid-20th century, engineering companies were adapting a segmented manufacturing journey with the aim of better allocating their budgets or shutting down projects that are failing to deliver expected results.

However, a refined version of the Phase-Gate process (under the name Stage-Gate© Discovery-to-Launch Process) was offered by Dr. Robert G. Cooper in the 1980s. It was originally introduced as a faster way to manage product innovation.

So, what exactly is the Phase-Gate process?

In short, it is a segmented (do-review) innovation management and New Product Development (NPD) technique. It is used to efficiently manage resources, prioritize initiatives, and lead the project from the early ideation steps, through development and prototyping to launch.

Cooper’s Stage-Gate process has a very specific and rigid structure, and while many use that term to refer to their management techniques, in reality, most organizations tweak the original structure and adapt it to their unique circumstances and ways of developing products.

Thus, any process that has a linear, segmented model with regular assessments and go/no-go decisions is commonly referred to as a Phase-Gate process.

How does it Work?

Since day one, the goal of the technique has been to divide a lengthy product development process into several well-defined steps (phases) to ease its evaluation along the way. Such an approach allowed managers to see whether the project is still on track to fulfill the promise of the initial idea or has it missed the perfect time to enter the market.

Just like with anything popular and well-known, the Phase-Gate process attracts a healthy amount of criticism. It is mainly criticized for its rigid structure which can stifle creativity since it is based on extensive research, detailed planning, and continuous double-checking. However, this strict structure and frequent check-ins are also the reason why the Phase-Gate is still popular, decades after its introduction.

Regular review processes allow organizations to identify and address issues early in the development stage. If any shortcomings would be discovered during the regular check-ins (gates), the project would be killed, paused, or sent back for a rework. In return, the elimination of weak projects would allow the organization to save time and money, as well as unlock more value by reallocating resources to more lucrative ideas.

Likewise, a project deemed valuable and promising would be green-lighted and would proceed to the next phase, be it prototyping, testing or launch.

At the end of the day, the Phase-Gate process gives an opportunity for the organization to manage the development of a product systematically and efficiently, minimizing risks, and ensuring that resources get allocated to the most viable projects, thus increasing the chances of the overall innovation portfolio being successful.

The objective of the Phase-Gate process is to minimize risks in product or service development, allocate resources more efficiently, and increase the overall chance of success for the innovation portfolio.

Who Can Benefit from Using the Phase-Gate Process?

The Phase-Gate process can be a great fit for big organizations where a hefty upfront investment (time /money) is typically needed to deliver a product to the market, or in industries where there are specific regulatory constraints.

For example, complicated projects like developing and manufacturing a new drug, or a smartphone device while difficult and requiring a very diligent, well-coordinated approach, are fundamentally predictable, hence they can be successfully planned out in advance and benefit from the Phase-Gate process.

So, common examples of industries where the process is used include the pharmaceutical sector, construction industry, electronics, manufacturing, and similar. Usually, as the applicable industries indicate, those organizations are quite large.

On the other hand, if you are running a low-risk project or a complex, disruptive initiative, the Phase-Gate process might become burdensome and too time-consuming.

A good example of low-risk cases might be any small incremental improvements to an existing product, a customer pre-ordering or committing to a contract, then part of the risk consideration is the customer’s responsibility, and rigorous gatekeeping becomes counterproductive.

Complex projects, on the other hand, such as creating a completely new type of business, a disruptive product, etc. are all unpredictable. It means that you can’t know in advance how changing one thing will affect another, so it’s nearly impossible to plan in advance. For these situations, more iterative and agile methods are likely to win against the Phase-Gate technique.

Thus, it is important to know when to adapt the Phase-Gate process to your own projects and when to green-light small endeavors from the get-go and just see them unfold.

While its roots and main benefits come from and for NPD processes, any complicated and time-consuming project can benefit from a well-structured Phase-Gate approach.

any complicated and time-consuming project can benefit from a well-structured Phase-Gate approach

Even in unpredictable projects, key ideas of the process can be useful, shifting focus on eliminating risks one at a time and granting funding in tiers as the team makes progress, not all at once.

To get a better understanding of what parts of the process could be used and when, let’s take a look at all its elements one by one.

The Structure of the Phase-Gate Process

To kick off the Phase-Gate process, you need to have an idea. It can derive from early-stage brainstorming sessions, a fruitful chat over coffee, or maybe even a well-planned ideation process. Either way, this idea-generation period in the Phase-Gate process is called the discovery phase or phase 0.

In an innovation process, the discovery focuses on identifying the right problem or opportunity to address. On top of all the brainstorming and creative thinking, it often includes a lot of field research.

Once you have the idea, you then work toward scoping it (phase 1), ensuring it is feasible (phase 2), developing (phase 3), testing and validating (phase 4), then finally launching it (phase 5). So, in total, the Phase-Gate process consists of six distinct idea development steps: discovery, scoping, feasibility, development, validation, and launch.

The Phase-Gate process consists of six distinct idea development steps: discovery, scoping, feasibility, development, validation, and launch

In addition, there are five continuous and one post-project review point – the so-called gates. Gates are pre-defined checkpoints where decision-makers assess the progress of the process and decide either to cancel the project or grant additional resources to it.

Viima Phase Gate 1

Thus, a review is necessary to harness the full value of your project. The gate review can also act as a short break for a difficult launch, pausing the development or sales process to implement fixes or improvements.

So, in short, the Phase-Gate process might look a little bit like this:

  1. Discovery phase: an innovation opportunity is discovered, and the initial idea is screened for the first time.
  2. Scoping phase: if the idea passes the first gate, the scope will be defined. The idea is thus refined into a proper concept and screened for the second time.
  3. Feasibility: accepted idea moves to the feasibility phase, where a business case is built, and the concept gets screened at the third gate.
  4. Development and Validation: the innovation’s first prototypes are created and evaluated, and testing takes place.
  5. Launch: when the innovation has been validated based on pre-defined criteria, it is launched to the market. After that, a post-launch review takes place

The above is a simplified version of a typical process. However, the Phase-Gate process can be molded to your unique needs, and many organizations indeed choose to do so.

But before we touch on that subject, let’s get a better understanding of each phase and the structure of the most common gates.

Discovery

First, to kick off the innovation process, you need ideas worth developing. In Phase-Gate, this step is called the discovery phase. Discovery creates a perfect environment for the ideation process, during which you and your team are generating and communicating ideas.

For NPD, where the Phase-Gate process is used the most, the discovery phase focuses on the problem or opportunity. Here, it is crucial to know what your potential customer’s needs and wants are. So, for that purpose, an organization can employ a framework such as the Jobs To Be Done theory.

It is worth noting that one should not limit themselves to ideas from their team only. Suggestions can come from outside your organization too, they can be sourced from inter-departmental brainstorming sessions, market research, collecting feedback from customers, suppliers, product teams, etc.

Scoping

In short, during the discovery, you generate a good idea, and during the Scoping phase, you map out some of the key risks and hypotheses associated with the idea and turn it into a tangible concept that you could start to develop.

During this step, the initial feasibility is considered, and market research is conducted. The Scoping phase is an excellent time to utilize SWOT or PESTEL analysis.

During the Scoping phase, it is crucial to understand the current supply and demand in the market, to determine what can be offered.

However, not every good-sounding idea is worth developing and during the scoping phase, it should be evaluated based on the organization’s priorities, not only the market fit.

Feasibility

The Feasibility phase (often referred to as Business Case or Business Viability) is the glue that pulls and holds your project together. In short, it is an important step of the Phase-Gate process, during which an actionable plan for the development of the product/service is created.

If your project gets the green light after this phase, it will move to the development step, thus use this time wisely and consider all “what ifs” in advance to avoid any possible hiccups.

The feasibility phase is complicated and time-consuming, and it is recommended to divide it into the following steps:

Viima Phase Gate 2

  • Product definition and analysis: one of the first steps is to determine whether the product is desirable and whether it solves the earlier discovered problem. User research during this step can help answer such crucial questions as how to satisfy customers’ needs and according to those, what features should the product have. Both quantitative and qualitative research should be conducted (i.e., interviews, surveys, and focus groups). Additional market and competitive analyses also take place during this phase.
  • Building the business case: a business case is a document that compares the project’s benefits against the costs, with a focus on whether the benefits truly outweigh the expenditure. It allows decision-makers to understand if the plan is realistic.
  • Feasibility study: While your business case analyses whether a project should be done, the feasibility study evaluates whether it could be.  And at its core, it answers the simple yet key question: in case of launch, will the outcomes of the project justify the cost needed to develop it?
  • Building the project plan: your project plan will determine whatwherewhen, and by whom. Think of it as a schedule for your business plan, that overlooks all the steps that you will take to move through the Phase-Gate process. It covers resources needed to complete the project, estimating how much time it would take to develop, and test, and finally when to launch the product.

Development

The developing phase is meant to work on a “tangible” prototype of the new product or service. Design and development teams should work according to pre-set goals and clear KPIs. The SMART goals approach can be a useful tool to break down the process into actionable steps.

In addition to product/service development and design, it is time to focus on a marketing campaign and plan how to reach your target audience.

Early-stage (alpha- or lab-) testing might take place during the development phase. The ideal goal of this stage is to prepare an early working prototype, ready and set to go into the testing phase.

Validation

The goal of the Validation phase is naturally to validate your prototype and for that, testing takes place. It is important to determine whether the prototype delivers any value and did it really meet the needs and objectives defined in the earlier stages. This step is all about polishing the rough edges, testing marketing, and distribution channels, and testing processes around the product.

Early-stage testing took place in the previous phase, but now it is time to see the product in action and gather as much feedback as possible. You do not want to rush a half-operating, half-failing product to the launch phase hoping for the best. You want to be ahead of all the possible issues and during this phase, you should ensure the following tests are taking place:

  • Near Testing: Run an in-house test involving people who are familiar with the product and process. During this test, the focus is set on finding any issues or bugs and eliminating them before the product hits the market or even before it moves to the beta-testing step.
  • Field (BetaTesting: This is the time for your project to leave its nest and get tested in a real-world setting. Typically, this testing involves your customers, partners or to play it super safe – internal staff that has never been part of the development process. The goal of beta testing is to see how testers are using the product, what features they like or find useless, and how much workload, wear and tear it can withhold. Flaws identified in this phase should get fixed.
  • Market Testing: Now that you have a perfected product, and you have a better understanding of how your future customers will use it, it is time to utilize this knowledge to adjust your earlier set marketing plan. Test several different marketing scenarios, positioning and messaging alternatives, different price points, and channels to see which ones seem to work the best. There is a plethora of different things to test and methods to use and the right ones depend on your unique situation and the hypothesis you need to test.

Launch

The validation step gives a chance to make the final tweaks and fixes to the project and if it passes the post-validation review step, it successfully moves to the launch phase.

However, while it sounds simple on paper, the launch phase is the step where all of the departments meet and have to work in perfect sync. Alongside the marketing department working their magic and the knowledgeable sales team, you must ensure the following are in order too: volume of production, methods, and channels for customer acquisition and delivery.

One thing that is important to plan for the launch is customer support. You might exhaust all the means of testing the product pre-launch, yet you will never be able to 100% predict how it will really behave in the market. In case your product gets a lot of attention, be it good or bad, a knowledgeable and dedicated support team will eliminate possible bottlenecks.

With that said, the launch phase is a long journey away from those first, shy ideation steps you take in the discovery phase. Your initial idea will be analyzed and scrutinized under a magnifying glass during the full Phase-Gate cycle and it will have to pass several gates first.

What is a Gate Review Process?

Traditionally, a project managed with the Phase-Gate process will go through 4 control gates (Idea ScreeningSecond Screening, Go-to- DevelopmentGo-to-Market Test) until reaching the final pre-launch gate – Launch. If during the final gate, the project gets approved and reaches the launch phase, the last thing that should be done is a post-launch Review, which could be considered as the final gate.

However, the Phase-Gate process can be adapted to the individual organization’s needs and the number of gates can be increased. Or, if a company is using a simplified process for smaller scale projects – decreased. No matter which path you pick for your project, remember that the quality of your gates can determine the quality of your project.

The quality of the gate review process can determine the quality of the whole project.

Gatekeeping

Normally, people responsible for reviewing and gatekeeping the project depend on the organization’s size, type, and scope of the product. Usually, it is a cross-functional executive committee or a steering group.

In a nutshell, this group or person is responsible for ensuring that the project gets a green light to move forward or gets stopped. In addition, they provide feedback and guidance to the project development teams to help them identify risks and to avoid unnecessary mistakes.

For the gatekeeper, it is important to understand all practicalities around the project. While there is a budget to keep an eye on, the progress will be doomed if it’s just the numbers that get looked at. The gatekeeper needs to deeply understand the market, technology, and customers, not just compare business cases and pick the one with the bigger numbers.

Whether the organization assigns a committee or a single supervisor for the gate review process, the crucial part is to ensure that the gatekeeper is not directly related to the project (project sponsor, project manager), to avoid biased assessment.

During the gate review, resources, budget, KPIs, and other success criteria get decided for the next project development phase. In addition, each gate review provides the committee with an update on the status of their innovation portfolio. It also gives an opportunity for both sides of the project (the project team and the evaluating committee) to challenge one another or to have a discussion that would put them on the same page.

However, it should not become a battleground, but rather a safe space to focus on learning, and the clearer the goals and KPIs you have set, the easier to manage and more efficient the gate review process will be.

Assessment of the Quality of the Idea

Gate reviews are checkpoints for assessing the potential, risks, and progress of the project, and making the decision on whether or not to allocate additional resources to it. They also provide a great opportunity to share feedback with all teams involved. This review typically includes a few different steps:

  • Quality of execution: to evaluate the quality of execution of the previous phase.
  • Business Rationale: to determine whether the project can be fruitful considering the assessments performed beforehand. It should include a list of key assumptions or hypotheses that the idea relies upon to become successful.
    If the project has issues or the assumptions are unrealistic the business rationale step in the gate assessment is when said issues get discovered, and unless a solution is found, the project gets killed.
  • Action Plan: to evaluate whether the expectations are reasonable and whether there are enough resources to implement all the planned or desired steps.
    If the idea is feasible and just the resources are lacking, it is common to pause the project and re-assess it later.

Gate Review Components

The review process must be clear, strict, and simple to leave little to no space for maybes and to make it as easy as possible to weed out weak projects. Usually, it relies on a points-based evaluation system.

There are two groups of criteria for a gate review:

  • Must meet: Objectives that the project must include and meet at a certain point of the process. If the project failed to meet one, the project is killed (or paused) outright. Usually, it is a checklist of questions that can be answered either yes or no.
  • Should meet: Objectives that are desirable for the project to meet. While the first group is simple in its structure (no = kill, yes = greenlight), this criterion is evaluated on a point system. Each objective is given points worth and at the end of the step final points get calculated and compared to the in advance set marking system.

Gate Outcomes

There are 4 possible outcomes for each assessment step.

  • Go – the project is feasible enough to get the green light. The go phase should include an agreement on what the project should deliver in the next phase (having this in place will make the next gate review much easier).
  • Kill – the project is not feasible and gets shut down. If a project does not have sufficient merit – the kill decision should just put an end to it.
  • Hold or Pause – the project is considered feasible but not at the current time or state and gets put on hold.
  • Conditional Go or Rework – the project can proceed to the next phase only if it meets certain requirements and conditions after a rework.

Viima Phase Gate 3

Quite often the Phase-Gate process is seen in black and white – you either kill or launch a project. For some, the outcome is as clear as that, however, it is not the case for every project. Conditional Go is just as important and crucial an outcome as Go or Kill.

For example, some strategically important projects might be sent back for a rework several times just to make them truly viable and garner their full potential. And while to some working on the project, this back-and-forth might be seen as a challenge, it only means that the Phase-Gate process works as intended.

Remember – the gate process is not just a basic review. It is the decision-making point where the project might be completely rejected and killed and for some people, it might be a breaking point in their careers.

Of course, it is always best to nurture a safe environment at work, where a failed project is not seen as a personal problem or career killer, rather failed project should be seen as an opportunity for everyone to learn from mistakes and just improve upon future projects.

Viima Phase Gate 4

Challenges and Benefits of the Phase-Gate Process

As mentioned before, there are those who swear by the Phase-Gate, and there are those, who argue against it. If you are wondering, which camp should you be joining and whether the Phase-Gate would be the right innovation management technique for you, first consider the challenges and benefits of the process.

Challenges

  • The rigid structure lacks flexibility. As the traditional Phase-Gate process follows a strict flow and rigid review process, it can limit creativity, and lead some projects to spend too much on bureaucracy as opposed to solving the real problems. As development must follow a pre-agreed set of rules and creative changes might cause the project to be rejected during the gate review phase. So, at the end of the day, in some situations, the process can be too heavy and demotivating for innovators.
  • Can lead to a lack of customer focus. The Phase-Gate process might lead to tunnel vision both for the project developing team and the review committee. The prior might feel pressured to focus on checking off tasks on a strict to-do list before the Gate review phase, instead of focusing on the bigger picture and real customer needs, while the latter might focus too much on early-stage market research, unwilling to accept sorely needed changes later on in the process.
  • A narrow focus on the business case. Even if the project does fit all the business case set criteria, it means very little in the grand scheme of things. First, every business case is always wrong: some just a little, but some massively so. Plus, there is a built-in incentive for teams to game the numbers to get to work on the project and acquire more resources, so unless reviews are done well, all the wrong projects might get funded. Plus, it doesn’t really account for poor execution or scenarios like a competitor coming out with a similar product, the geopolitical environment changing, or customer preferences changing during the project.
  • Focus on short-term results and risk aversion. The Phase-Gate process is designed to reduce risk and increase the project’s chances of success, but that can sometimes lead to undesirable biases. It can be tempting to reject a project on the grounds that it is too costly and instead, invest money in easy-to-predict improvements on existing products. In such cases, a risky and unpredictable innovation that might generate the most profit might always lose in favor of quick, predictable, and short-term oriented projects.
  • Competitive and divisive approach. The Phase-Gate process might create a competitive environment where teams are battling for funding for their project against one another, as well as create “sides” – one that develops the project and another that evaluates it. So, instead of innovation being a strategic pursuit of common goals for everyone in the organization, it might create tension, division, and competition instead.
  • Not accepting any unpredictability. In many cases, it’s impossible to gather all the evidence before making decisions related to innovation. Some companies strive to eliminate all uncertainty or require detailed business cases for everything when it might be impossible to create it accurately early on in the process. This is highly counterproductive and frustrating for innovators.

Benefits

  • Eliminates “dead-end” projects. It isn’t uncommon for some projects to get lost or stuck in big organizations. By requiring regular reviews, the Phase-Gate process ensures no project will be forgotten or left pending, hogging valuable resources.
  • Identifies issues early on. Every idea must pass several reviews. And if the idea is good but the planning around is poor, it simply gets paused and sent for a rework. This way the organization does not lose a good idea and gives it a standing chance.
  • Minimizes costs and time spent. By eliminating those “dead-end” projects and troubleshooting projects early, the organization is able to save resources. Also, the earlier you can identify, eliminate, and prevent issues, the cheaper it is, both in terms of time and money spent. That is usually preferable to pushing out a broken product into the market and then having to deal with the panic, complaints, returns, brand damage, and so on.
  • Prevents “politics”. By entailing the same rules, requirements, and stringent review process for each project, the Phase-Gate can prevent top executives from investing too much in their pet projects, freeing resource allocation and giving a fair chance for every project.
  • Facilitates joint decision-making. Instead of one project manager overseeing, managing, forecasting, and deciding upon the progress of the NPD process, in the Phase-Gate process, multiple stakeholders and teams can influence the decision-making process, making it more objective and inclusive.

In addition, it is important to note that a well-planned and well-structured Phase-Gate process counters some of the challenges that many fear experiencing while implementing it.

If done correctly, the Phase-Gate process can and will:

  • Foster holistic thinking. When done well, it helps to make sure everyone is thinking about the problems holistically: e.g., business, customer, and technology, which helps avoid unnecessary mistakes.
  • Systematize innovation. The structured approach gives clarity to the process, eliminates challenges, and bottlenecks, and gives a set of rules on how to make your idea into an innovative, valuable solution. While some might find this frustrating, it can also help turn more employees into successful innovators.
  • Reduce riskMaking a list, and checking it twice does help avoid unnecessary waste, mistakes, and any other mishaps. In addition, the Phase-Gate approach makes you detail all of your assumptions before you move forward with the project which allows solving all the potential issues before they have a chance to arise.

Tips to Improve the Phase-Gate Process

The Phase-Gate process is an adaptable and scalable approach that can help transform your business by identifying new opportunities and unlocking more innovation. And while on paper it all sounds pretty straightforward, in reality, it requires a dedicated management team to make it work for your organization’s unique business environment and culture.

To reach its full potential, consider some of the following:

  • Clear gate criteria. Set clear, objective criteria to pass each gate in advance, communicate it across all the involved teams and ensure they are accepted by each team before you move on. In addition, consider if you will want to proceed with a point-based rating system or whether another type of evaluation fits your processes better.
  • Clear gate function. While the primary goal of your gates is to stop/green-light a project, they should also work as a guide to the teams on what to do next. Make sure each gate makes the team outline and test the assumptions built into their plans and business models. Reviews should help guide teams on the right track, not just pass judgment. Finally, discuss and determine the types of meeting you will hold in-person, virtual, or hybrid. Which one caters to the needs of everyone and delivers the best results for your organization?
  • Diverse and educated gatekeepers. First, gather a diverse, multidisciplinary gate review committee that understands the customers and the technology intimately. Gatekeepers will after all determine the overall success of the Phase-Gate process. And second, as the gate review process touches on every possible aspect of product or service development, make sure your review committee is knowledgeable and constantly up to date on market changes, customer needs, legal or regulatory aspects, etc.
  • Regular check-ins. The timeline of your process will vary depending on the project you are developing, but either if it is moving at a fast or slow pace, regular (at least monthly) meetings are important to keep all projects moving. And this applies to meetings during each phase, not just during the review steps. It will allow teams to stay aligned and on top of resources.
  • Customer-first. Unless you are implementing changes aimed at improving employee engagement or other internal aspects, customers should always remain the focus of your attention. Staying customer-focused through every phase and gate will help you avoid internal politics, unnecessary competitiveness, and friction that might arise between project-developing and project-reviewing teams. And of course, it will ensure that you are still working on a relevant product or service.
  • Input from stakeholders. Retain open communication channels. First of all, it ensures transparency and trust top-down and bottom-up, by giving a clear view of the process to everyone involved. In addition, it improves the overall flow of the process and reviews steps by providing additional insights and feedback that otherwise might have been missed.

Lastly, consider your organization’s unique culture. It can take time and sometimes even resistance to introducing a completely new innovation management process.But patience, planning, clear communication, and internal support will set you on the right track to successfully implementing the Phase-Gate process.

Conclusion

Overall, the Phase-Gate process is a valuable tool for managing the development of new products and services, and it can help your organization to be more efficient, effective, and innovative.

For some, the Phase-Gate process might work great, while other organizations might need something a little different.

The Phase-Gate approach might have the biggest name in the group, but it is not the only innovation management process out there. If after reaching the end of the article you are still not sure whether it is the right fit for your organization, you can check our past entries on Innovation Management. Maybe it will help you discover just the thing you’ve been searching for.

But, if you are curious to proceed with the Phase-Gate process, you can try it on for size for example via the Viima app. To make your onboarding experience smooth, and your innovation project management easy, we have created a Phase-Gate process template ready to be used just after a few clicks.

This article was originally published on Viima’s blog.

Image Credit: Viima, Unsplash

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

Using Limits to Become Limitless

Using Limits to Become Limitless

GUEST POST from Rachel Audige

While it dates back to the 1970s, the expression ‘think outside the box’ is still in vogue. Yet the idea of creativity being best when unrestrained is at best a bit of a fable and at worst, unhelpful – particularly when we are confined to the four walls of our home! What is really helpful is when people actually impose constraints on their thinking. It’s counter-intuitive but creativity loves constraints.

So, what sort of constraints does it love? In my experience, there are five. The first — contrary to popular belief — is to artificially create a frame or a ‘box’. In her inspiring TEDx talk at Newark Academy, Tess Callahan spoke about “the love affair between creativity and constraint.” We all admire people who think outside the box but how do they do it? What if the key to thinking ‘outside the box’ is to create a box to think outside of?”, she says.

For many, thinking ‘outside the box’ means exploring new paths and “being open-minded” and “brainstorming without judgement”. This makes sense but how to do this is not very clear. Subject to the rigour of the facilitator, brainstorming sessions are likely to generate a huge list of ideas that are more or less out of reach. I call these ‘aromatherapy ideas’ (inspired by an ad where the brainstorm led to aromatherapy candles in the hire car putting everyone — even the driver! — to sleep). The team feels empowered and hyped but months later when nothing has happened to their ideas, they are cynical and will boot out the next person who wants to talk innovation.

In workshops we illustrate the difference between outside and inside-the-box thinking by asking people to go create a piece of exercise equipment that we’ve never seen before. Faces look blank, the buzz is low but the pairs come up with a few nice ideas. In a second round we ask them to do the same but to make it exercise equipment that we can use at the wheel of our car. The noise level trebles, ideas fuse and even those who had nothing have some interesting ideas (along with the odd aromatherapy one!). We then ask them ‘Which exercise was easier?’. 95% will say the second (there’s always an outlier or two…). Give people the context; the box. Zoom in and work from there. This gives people focus and avoids the blank canvas syndrome.

The second constraint loved by creativity is the natural corollary of the first: once you have a defined ‘box’, you should follow a path of most resistance and limit the resources you can use to ideate or create.

Systematic Inventive Thinking (SIT), the Israeli company and innovation method that I believe really enhances creative thinking (as opposed to simply providing a process) is grounded in this belief that constraints foster creativity. The founders were so convinced of this that they imposed an artificial constraint on the creative process so that you have to strive to only use resources that are inside what we call the ‘Closed World’. The key to this is being systematic about how you go through the ‘inventory’ of this closed world. If you’re not, your cognitive biases will blind you to some great ideas…

That brings us to the third idea: once you have limited your frame and your resources, creativity is enhanced by drawing on inspiration; on templates. These help bust these biases and take a different path through our minds. When artists want to paint, they often learn by copying the masters. Likewise, in creative thinking and innovation it is powerful to draw on the most inventive ideas. There are countless templates to draw from. Biomimicry is based on the templates tried and tested by Mother Nature. The Speedo swimsuits inspired by shark skin to reduce drag were banned in the Olympics were seen to be a nice example of this. TRIZ (the inspiration for SIT) covers 40 patterns that not only inspire but are said to serve as predictive models for future innovations…

In SIT we work with five inventive thinking tools that come from five patterns present in the 80% of the most inventive ideas (‘surprising for some but there is a sort of DNA to creative ideas). They include removing an essential component (like Apple did with the Shuffle) or dividing up a process or product and moving a component in time or space (like H&M did when they moved the step of paying from the end of the shopping process to the moment the decision is made in the fitting room). The brilliant thing is that these templates not only increase our chances of coming up with something exciting but they help bust the cognitive biases that may lead us to miss resources that are right under our nose.

The fourth constraint is to diligently follow a workflow. In design thinking we have learnt to start with our customers’ needs and pain points (the “function”) and develop a solution (the “form”) to fit. This has been a crucial shift that taught organisations to stop product push but what if we could learn another workflow? And what if this workflow could help us suspend our embedded thinking so that we can unearth more original ideas?

Back in the early 90’s, a group of psychologists made an interesting discovery. When it comes to creating, people are innately better at uncovering the potential benefits of a given form than creating a new form to satisfy a given need. Or, to put it differently, we struggle to come up with a solution to a problem more than a problem for a given solution. Those of us who work with this find that this “back-to-front” approach is great way to stop ourselves from default thinking and embedding the structures, functions and relationships that we are used to into the new idea.

In SIT we call this ‘Function Follows Form’ and the more strictly we apply this workflow constraint, the more impactful it is on our creative thinking. We start by defining the closed world and listing the resources we have available. We then apply a template (depending on the most likely cognitive fixedness). This manipulation leads to a ‘virtual’ process, product or ‘situation’. This is when our resistance is greatest and if we are not strict about limiting our thinking to this oddly manipulated virtual form, we are likely to reject it and possibly miss the opportunities it offers. Once we have visualised it and described how it could work, we then explore its desirability, feasibility and viability, make any necessary adaptations and then test the idea if it warrants it. It is invaluable to know how to think both form to function as well as function to form.

The last constraint is that of embracing unchosen limitations. Phil Hansen (TEDxKC) tells a beautiful story of how he harnessed the power of embracing a ‘shake’’ to create even more extraordinary art.

After years of painting with a method of tiny dots, Hansen developed a shake in the hand that made it impossible to paint as he was used to doing. His dots “had become tadpoles”. It was good for “shaking a can of paint” but for Phil it was “the destruction of his dream of becoming an artist.” He left art school and he left art.

This didn’t work for him, however, so, after a while, he went to see a neurologist who diagnosed him with permanent nerve damage. This wasn’t great. What was great though was what he said to him: “ Why don’t you just embrace the shake?”

So he went home and started making art with nothing but scribbles . He then limited himself to his feet. He then moved to wood… He moved to larger materials where his hand wouldn’t hurt. He started with a single way of painting and ended up with endless possibilities. “This was the first time that I encountered the idea that embracing limitation could actually drive creativity,” he says.

He finished up school and got a new job. This enabled him to afford more art supplies. He explains that he “went nuts” buying stuff and took it home with the intention to do something incredible. He sat there for hours and nothing came. Same thing the next day. And the next. He was “creatively blank”; paralysed by all these choices that he never had before. That was when he thought about what the neurologist had said…

He realised that if he ever wanted his creativity back, he had to quit trying so hard to think outside of the box, and “get back into it”. In fact, he started exploring the idea that he could get more creative by actually looking for limitations? “We need to first be limited in order to become limitless, he says, very poignantly.

He took this approach to being ‘inside the box’ and did a series of artworks where he imposed tight constraints: he could only paint on his chest, or he could only create with karate chops or what if he created art to destroy after its creation (an image of Jimmy Hendricks made out of 7000 matches — crazy!), what if he used frozen wine…“What I thought would be the ultimate limitation turned out to be the ultimate liberation as each time I created the destruction brought me back to a place of neutrality where I felt fresh to start a new project,” he explains.

He found myself in a state of constant creation “coming up with more ideas than ever…”

We don’t all have the honed creative skills of my new artist friend or of the astonishing Phil Hansen but that’s all the more reason to boost our creative potential. As individuals and in organisations, we need learnable, robust, repeatable tools to be more skilled inventive thinkers — and to be able to harness this on demand. We need methods that impose limitations. So try getting back inside the box and embrace the constraints!

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

Is Futurology a Pseudoscience?

Is Futurology a Pseudoscience?

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

Futurology (aka Future Studies or Futures Research) is a subject of study that attempts to make predictions and forecasts about the future. It is an interdisciplinary field that draws from a variety of sources, including science, economics, philosophy, and technology. In recent years, futurology has become a popular topic of debate, with some arguing that it is a pseudoscience and others defending its validity as a legitimate field of study.

One of the main criticisms of futurology is that it relies on speculation and extrapolation of existing trends, rather than on scientific evidence or principles. Critics argue that this makes futurists’ predictions unreliable and that futurology is more of a speculative activity than a rigorous scientific discipline. They also point out that predictions about the future are often wrong, and that the field has had a reputation for making exaggerated claims that have not been borne out by the facts.

“Futurology always ends up telling you more about you own time than about the future.” Matt Ridley

On the other hand, proponents of futurology argue that the field has a legitimate place in the scientific community. They point to the fact that many futurists are well-educated, highly trained professionals who use rigorous methods and data analysis to make accurate predictions. These futurists also often draw on a wide range of sources, such as history, economics, and psychology, to make their forecasts.

Ultimately, the debate over whether or not futurology (aka future studies or futures research) is a pseudoscience is likely to continue. Some may see it as a legitimate field of study, while others may view it as little more than guesswork. What is certain, however, is that the field is still evolving and that the ability of futurists to accurately predict the future will be an important factor in determining its ultimate validity.

Do you think futurology is a pseudoscience?
(sound off in the comments)

And to the futurists and futurology professionals out there, what say you?
(add a comment)

Bottom line: Futurology and prescience are not fortune telling. Skilled futurologists and futurists use a scientific approach to create their deliverables, but a methodology and tools like those in FutureHacking™ can empower anyone to engage in futurology themselves.

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.