Tag Archives: innovation teams

Nine Traits of Innovation Team Success

1. Standout programs spend more time on transformational innovation, less on incremental.

Winning innovation teams set their sights on moving the growth needle. They help their companies anticipate and navigate disruption in their industry. And they spend more time on “transformational” innovation, which the report defines as “entirely new offerings or business models.” Many innovation groups within large companies spend as much as 50% of their time working on incremental improvements to today’s products and services; 30% on adjacent innovation opportunities; and only 20% on transformational innovation. But the more mature, successful, growth-driving programs allocate even more time and energy to transformational activities. For them, the mix looks like 40% incremental, 30% adjacent, and 30% transformational.

2. They get the right people on the innovation bus.

In other words, they know who should be doing what, and they get people busy doing what they do best. Mature companies know who should be involved in the different “horizons” of innovation. They get their business units to carry more of the load in everyday incremental innovation. And this frees up their central innovation groups, R&D departments, and corporate VC teams to spend time exploring adjacent and transformational opportunities.

3. They create effective incentives to support innovation.

The report clarifies a failing that I commonly see in corporate America. Surprisingly few companies offer any kind of incentive specifically geared at fostering more innovative behaviors among their employees. More than 35% of respondents in the Innovation Leader survey said that their company doesn’t have any kind of innovation-related incentives. But the story is dramatically different for the more innovation adept companies. Almost 80% of companies have an incentive program in place. Of those, incentives vary greatly and are always in flux. They can run the gamut from dedicated time or space for employees to work on their projects to spot awards for “above and beyond” dedication such as an all-expenses paid trip to a destination of choice. Successful programs know that recognition is the biggest incentive of all.

4. They put real dollars to work.

The more successful innovation company programs are more willing to put financial resources behind their innovation ambitions. Fully 60% of these companies are investing at least $5 million annually in innovation, and almost one quarter have annual budgets north of $50 million. Those bigger budgets come from demonstrating traction, internal and external impact, and wins in the market. (But that can be a tall order to do that when you may start with a tiny team and a budget that is a rounding error: About 23% of the respondents said their budgets were under $1 million annually.)

5. They make innovation a part of the organizational DNA.

Because innovation is part of the DNA at these more sophisticated companies, many different individuals across business units, functions, and departments are involved with innovation initiatives — even if they don’t have “innovation” in their formal titles. Still, there is often a good-sized central team to coordinate this work or provide additional resources; 47% of these more mature companies say they have 25 or more employees assigned to a central innovation or R&D team.

6. They bring investment groups into the mix.

Rather than isolating themselves, mature innovation groups team up with the corporate venture and corporate development arms to achieve their adjacent and transformational innovation objectives. These mash-ups often involve collaborating with, funding, or buying smaller companies and startups that corporate VC groups initially scout or incubate.

7. They get funded from multiple sources and stay flexible.

Mature innovation teams are not married to the annual budget process. Instead, they need the flexibility to move fast, so they run separately-governed innovation investment processes. Having the means to get funding outside of the annual corporate process gives mature teams the agility to attack new opportunities and trends without waiting around for the next fiscal cycle.

8. They avoid politics and turf wars by partnering effectively with the business units.

The biggest obstacle to innovation, according to Innovation Leader’s data, is politics and turf wars. More than half of all respondents – mature or not – admitted this was a problem standing in the way of innovation progress. But fewer of the more mature companies cited politics and turf wars as an issue. The reason? Mature companies are more likely to have created alignment on their strategy, put the right people on the right projects with the right incentives, and created clear duties and responsibilities about who is expected to be moving innovation forward. That means they experience fewer internal conflicts that can get in the way of launching or experimenting with new lines of business.

9. Standout programs are aligned with the overall strategy.

Another important hallmark of a mature innovation program is that the internal teams are all gathered around the same campfire. Mature companies have a unified strategy and vision that the entire company is aware of. That means employees can spend less time fighting for support or budget, and more time delivering real results.

This article originally appeared in Forbes
Image credit: 1 of 1,250+ FREE quote images available at http://misterinnovation.com

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

Get Social with Your Innovation

Leave a reply

If your organization is struggling to sustain its innovation efforts, then I hope you will do the following things.

Find the purpose and passion that everyone can rally around.

Create the flexibility necessary to deal with the constant change that a focus on innovation requires for both customers and the organization.

Make innovation the social activity it truly must be for you to become successful.

If your organization has lost the courage to move innovation to its center and has gotten stuck in a project – focused, reactive innovation approach, then now is your chance to regain the higher ground and to refocus, not on having an innovation success but on building an innovation capability. Are you up to the challenge?

There is a great article “ Passion versus Obsession ” by John Hagel that explores the differences between passion and obsession. This is an important distinction to understand in order to make sure you are hiring people to power your innovation efforts who are passionate and not obsessive. Here are a few key quotes from the article:

“The first significant difference between passion and obsession is the role free will plays in each disposition: passionate people fight their way willingly to the edge to find places where they can pursue their passions more freely, while obsessive people (at best) passively drift there or (at worst) are exiled there.”

“It’s not an accident that we speak of an “object of obsession,” but the “subject of passion.” That’s because obsession tends towards highly specific focal points or goals, whereas passion is oriented toward networked, diversified spaces.”

More quotes from the John Hagel article:

“The subjects of passion invite and even demand connections with others who share the passion.”

“Because passionate people are driven to create as a way to grow and achieve their potential, they are constantly seeking out others who share their passion in a quest for collaboration, friction and inspiration . . . . The key difference between passion and obsession is fundamentally social: passion helps build relationships and obsession inhibits them.”

“It has been a long journey and it is far from over, but it has taught me that obsession confines while passion liberates.”

These quotes from John Hagel’s article are important because they reinforce the notion that innovation is a social activity. While many people give Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and the modern-day equivalent, Dean Kamen, credit for being lone inventors, the fact is that the lone inventor myth is just that — a myth, one which caused me to create The Nine Innovation Roles.

The fact is that all of these gentlemen had labs full of people who shared their passion for creative pursuits. Innovation requires collaboration, either publicly or privately, and is realized as an outcome of three social activities.

1. Social Inputs

From the very beginning when an organization is seeking to identify key insights to base an innovation strategy or project on, organizations often use ethnographic research, focus groups, or other very social methods to get at the insights. Great innovators also make connections to other industries and other disciplines to help create the great in sights that inspire great solutions.

2. Social Evolution

We usually have innovation teams in organizations, not sole inventors, and so the activity of transforming the seeds of useful invention into a solution valued above every existing alternative is very social. It takes a village of passionate villagers to transform an idea into an innovation in the marketplace. Great innovators make connections inside the organization to the people who can ask the right questions, uncover the most important weaknesses, help solve the most difficult challenges, and help break down internal barriers within the organization — all in support of creating a better solution.

3. Social Execution

The same customer group that you may have spent time with, seeking to understand, now requires education to show them that they really need the solution that all of their actions and behaviors indicated they needed at the beginning of the process. This social execution includes social outputs like trials, beta programs, trade show booths, and more. Great innovators have the patience to allow a new market space to mature, and they know how to grow the demand while also identifying the key shortcomings with customers who are holding the solution back from mass acceptance.

Conclusion

When it comes to insights, these three activities are not completely discrete. Insights do not expose themselves only in the social inputs phase, but can also expose themselves in other phases — if you’re paying attention.

Flickr famously started out as a company producing a video game in the social inputs phase, but was astute enough during the social execution phase to recognize that the most used feature was one that allowed people to share photos. Recognizing that there was an unmet market need amongst customers for easy sharing of photos, Flickr reoriented its market solution from video game to photo sharing site and reaped millions of dollars in the process when they ultimately sold their site to Yahoo!.

Ultimately, action is more important than intent, and so as an innovator you must always be listening and watching to see what people do and not just what they say. Build your solution on the wrong insight and nobody will be beating a path to your door.

NOTE: This article is an adaptation of some of the great content in my five-star book Stoking Your Innovation Bonfire (available in many local libraries and fine booksellers everywhere).