Tag Archives: Netflix

The Crisis Innovation Trap

Why Proactive Innovation Wins

The Crisis Innovation Trap

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

In the narrative of business, we often romanticize the idea of “crisis innovation.” The sudden, high-stakes moment when a company, backed against a wall, unleashes a burst of creativity to survive. The pandemic, for instance, forced countless businesses to pivot their models overnight. While this showcases incredible human resilience, it also reveals a dangerous and costly trap: the belief that innovation is something you turn on only when there’s an emergency. As a human-centered change and innovation thought leader, I’ve seen firsthand that relying on crisis as a catalyst is a recipe for short-term fixes and long-term decline. True, sustainable innovation is not a reaction; it’s a proactive, continuous discipline.

The problem with waiting for a crisis is that by the time it hits, you’re operating from a position of weakness. You’re making decisions under immense pressure, with limited resources, and with a narrow focus on survival. This reactive approach rarely leads to truly transformative breakthroughs. Instead, it produces incremental changes and tactical adaptations—often at a steep price in terms of burnout, strategic coherence, and missed opportunities. The most successful organizations don’t innovate to escape a crisis; they innovate continuously to prevent one from ever happening.

The Cost of Crisis-Driven Innovation

Relying on crisis as your innovation driver comes with significant hidden costs:

Reactive vs. Strategic: Crisis innovation is inherently reactive. You’re fixing a symptom, not addressing the root cause. This prevents you from engaging in the deep, strategic thinking necessary for true market disruption.
Loss of Foresight: When you’re in a crisis, all attention is on the immediate threat. This short-term focus blinds you to emerging trends, shifting customer needs, and new market opportunities that could have been identified and acted upon proactively.
Burnout and Exhaustion: Innovation requires creative energy. Forcing your teams into a constant state of emergency to innovate leads to rapid burnout, high turnover, and a culture of fear, not creativity.
Suboptimal Outcomes: The solutions developed in a crisis are often rushed, inadequately tested, and sub-optimized. They are designed to solve an immediate problem, not to create a lasting competitive advantage.

“Crisis innovation is a sprint for survival. Proactive innovation is a marathon for market leadership. You can’t win a marathon by only practicing sprints when the gun goes off.”

Building a Culture of Proactive, Human-Centered Innovation

The alternative to the crisis innovation trap is to embed innovation into your organization’s DNA. This means creating a culture where curiosity, experimentation, and a deep understanding of human needs are constant, not sporadic. It’s about empowering your people to solve problems and create value every single day.

Embrace Psychological Safety: Create an environment where employees feel safe to share half-formed ideas, question assumptions, and even fail. This is the single most important ingredient for continuous innovation.
Allocate Dedicated Resources: Don’t expect innovation to happen in people’s spare time. Set aside dedicated time, budget, and talent for exploratory projects and initiatives that don’t have an immediate ROI.
Focus on Human-Centered Design: Continuously engage with your customers and employees to understand their frustrations and aspirations. True innovation comes from solving real human problems, not just from internal brainstorming.
Reward Curiosity, Not Just Results: Celebrate learning, even from failures. Recognize teams for their efforts in exploring new ideas and for the insights they gain, not just for the products they successfully launch.

Case Study 1: Blockbuster vs. Netflix – The Foresight Gap

The Challenge:

In the late 1990s, Blockbuster was the undisputed king of home video rentals. It had a massive physical footprint, brand recognition, and a highly profitable business model based on late fees. The crisis of digital disruption and streaming was not a sudden event; it was a slow-moving signal on the horizon.

The Reactive Approach (Blockbuster):

Blockbuster’s management was aware of the shift to digital, but they largely viewed it as a distant threat. They were so profitable from their existing model that they had no incentive to proactively innovate. When Netflix began gaining traction with its subscription-based, DVD-by-mail service, Blockbuster’s response was a reactive, half-hearted attempt to mimic it. They launched an online service but failed to integrate it with their core business, and their culture remained focused on the physical store model. They only truly panicked and began a desperate, large-scale innovation effort when it was already too late and the market had irreversibly shifted to streaming.

The Result:

Blockbuster’s crisis-driven innovation was a spectacular failure. By the time they were forced to act, they lacked the necessary strategic coherence, internal alignment, and cultural agility to compete. They didn’t innovate to get ahead; they innovated to survive, and they failed. They went from market leader to bankruptcy, a powerful lesson in the dangers of waiting for a crisis to force your hand.

Case Study 2: Lego’s Near-Death and Subsequent Reinvention

The Challenge:

In the early 2000s, Lego was on the brink of bankruptcy. The brand, once a global icon, had become a sprawling, unfocused company that was losing relevance with children increasingly drawn to video games and digital entertainment. The company’s crisis was not a sudden external shock, but a slow, painful internal decline caused by a lack of proactive innovation and a departure from its core values. They had innovated, but in a scattered, unfocused way that diluted the brand.

The Proactive Turnaround (Lego):

Lego’s new leadership realized that a reactive, last-ditch effort wouldn’t save them. They saw the crisis as a wake-up call to fundamentally reinvent how they innovate. Their strategy was not just to survive but to thrive by returning to a proactive, human-centered approach. They went back to their core product, the simple plastic brick, and focused on deeply understanding what their customers—both children and adult fans—wanted. They launched several initiatives:

Re-focus on the Core: They trimmed down their product lines and doubled down on what made Lego special—creativity and building.
Embracing the Community: They proactively engaged with their most passionate fans, the “AFOLs” (Adult Fans of Lego), and co-created new products like the highly successful Lego Architecture and Ideas series. This wasn’t a reaction to a trend; it was a strategic partnership.
Thoughtful Digital Integration: Instead of panicking and launching a thousand digital products, they carefully integrated their physical and digital worlds with games like Lego Star Wars and movies like The Lego Movie. These weren’t rushed reactions; they were part of a long-term, strategic vision.

The Result:

Lego’s transformation from a company on the brink to a global powerhouse is a powerful example of the superiority of proactive innovation. By not just reacting to their crisis but using it as a catalyst to build a continuous, human-centered innovation engine, they not only survived but flourished. They turned a painful crisis into a foundation for a new era of growth, proving that the best time to innovate is always, not just when you have no other choice.

Eight I's of Infinite Innovation

The Eight I’s of Infinite Innovation

Braden Kelley’s Eight I’s of Infinite Innovation provides a comprehensive framework for organizations seeking to embed continuous innovation into their DNA. The model starts with Ideation, the spark of new concepts, which must be followed by Inspiration—connecting those ideas to a compelling, human-centered vision. This vision is refined through Investigation, a process of deeply understanding customer needs and market dynamics, leading to the Iteration of prototypes and solutions based on real-world feedback. The framework then moves from development to delivery with Implementation, the critical step of bringing a viable product to market. This is not the end, however; it’s a feedback loop that requires Invention of new business models, a constant process of Improvement based on outcomes, and finally, the cultivation of an Innovation culture where the cycle can repeat infinitely. Each ‘I’ builds upon the last, creating a holistic and sustainable engine for growth.

Conclusion: The Time to Innovate is Now

The notion of “crisis innovation” is seductive because it offers a heroic narrative. But behind every such story is a cautionary tale of a company that let a problem fester for far too long. The most enduring, profitable, and relevant organizations don’t wait for a burning platform to jump; they are constantly building new platforms. They have embedded a culture of continuous, proactive innovation driven by a deep understanding of human needs. They innovate when times are good so they are prepared when times are tough.

The time to innovate is not when your stock price plummets or your competitor launches a new product. The time to innovate is now, and always. By making innovation a fundamental part of your business, you ensure your organization’s longevity and its ability to not just survive the future, but to shape it.

Image credit: Pixabay

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area and the key elements to focus on were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with help from Google Gemini to shape the article and create the illustrative case studies.

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

What is Digital Transformation anyway?

1 Reply

Digital Transformation is the third wave of digital evolution.

What is Digital Transformation anyway?

GUEST POST from Howard Tiersky

The first wave was brochureware. Enterprises created websites that communicated their story. As simple as this idea is, it was revolutionary. The business value of providing instant sales and marketing material at the click of a mouse is hugely valuable.

The second wave was eCommerce. Enterprises connected customer-facing digital front-ends to their back-end systems, so that customers could engage in transactions directly via their browser or mobile device. This wave generated much more value than brochureware, because it reduced the cost of customer interaction, and removed friction from the user experience. Businesses who have mastered eCommerce have been able to trump former market leaders. In today’s world, if you can’t provide elegant digital options for the customer throughout their entire journey, you’re toast.

Now we find ourselves in the third wave: Digital Transformation. eCommerce added new pathways for pre-existing offerings, but companies going through digital transformation need to reinvent themselves for a digital age. Netflix made the transition from being a mail-order company to a streaming company. Though they still focus on their core value proposition of providing extended choices and increased convenience, their entire solution offering had to shift, along with their customer experience, pricing, contracts with suppliers, marketing, and more. Furthermore, given new methods of interacting with the consumer, it became practical for them to focus serious resources on content creation, as well. While the Netflix DVD-by-mail service was definitely eCommerce enabled (i.e. you could order DVDs via their web site), their digitally transformed value proposition is fundamentally impossible without digital.

Uber is doing the same thing for transportation. While plenty of taxi and limousine companies have apps that allow you to order their vehicles, Uber created a business model that was completely digitally focused. This meant that they didn’t need to own any vehicles or hire any drivers to become the largest ground transportation company in the world. It’s worth noting that Uber didn’t really go through a digital transformation, it was born digital. Digital Transformation is what pre-digital companies must undertake to compete in the newest wave of the digital age.

But even those companies that are “born digital” will need to focus on ongoing transformation. There are multiple examples of early digital successes, companies like Yahoo and MySpace, that failed to continue to transform.

Digital Transformation also requires a different mindset around where digital “lives” within the organization. You can visualize the way digital transformation works in the enterprises like this:

Wave 1 – Brochureware: Digital was part of marketing.
Wave 2 – eCommerce: Digital is a support service, creating digital pathways to pre-existing services like ordering, customer support, and billing.
Wave 3 – Digital Transformation: Digital reimagines the entire value proposition and business model of the company.

The goal of Digital in Wave 2 is to support the strategy and operations of the company by augmenting non-digital channels with more efficient and elegant digital alternatives. But in Wave 3, digital is driving the bus. The entire company — its value proposition and business model — is reimagined with digital at the center. This requires some substantial shifts in organizational structure, roles, and mindset; these shifts make companies hesitant to move towards true digital transformation. They engage in what is sometimes called Digital Decoration, that makes them seem progressive while protecting the “integrity” of their legacy business structures.

This is a losing strategy. There’s a long history of companies who decided to protect their existing models over supporting new ones. Kodak suffocated its early digital camera products; Blockbuster resisted focusing on digital delivery of entertainment. Western Union scoffed at the telephone.

In fact, here’s an example of an internal memo sent at Western Union:

“Why would any person want to use this ungainly and impractical device [a telephone] when he can send a messenger to the telegraph office and have a clear written message sent to any large city in the United States?”

Western Union opted out of the “digital transformation” of its era and I predict the same outcome for pre-digital companies who take a similar approach.

This article originally appeared on the Howard Tiersky blog
Image Credit: Pexels

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

What Disruptive Innovation Really Is

Leave a reply

What Disruptive Innovation Really Is

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

I recently read an article in ZDnet by Sherin Shibu discussing disruptive innovation, primarily through the lens of Clay Christensen’s work at the Harvard Business School. The article itself is very sound, and yet I found myself disagreeing with it on a number of points. In this blog, I want to interleave what Shibu says (presented in standard font) with my own commentary (inserted in italics) so that readers can develop their own point of view from the interaction.

What is disruptive innovation?

Disruptive innovation theory is a cautionary concept for large, established companies: There’s danger in becoming too good at what you do best. Delivering to the mainstream market is good and all, but a disruptor could target a market underserved by your current product with a new business model.

For me, disruptive innovation has a much bigger footprint because it also underlies virtually all venture capital investment. Its fundamental promise is to release an enormous amount of trapped value by reengineering an established system or process. The reason it is a cautionary concept for large established companies is that they are the custodians of the legacy systems and processes that are trapping the value. Yes, they can reduce the overhead by optimizing what they have, but no, they cannot compete with a categorically better way of doing things.

Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen developed the concept of disruptive innovation in the 1990s with his groundbreaking book The Innovator’s Dilemma, and the theory became wildly popular in the decades to follow. But in some respects it has become a victim of its own success: “Despite broad dissemination, the theory’s core concepts have been widely misunderstood and its basic tenets frequently misapplied,” notes The Harvard Business Review.

Disruptive innovation is a process by which entrepreneurs break into a low-end or new market and create business models that are different from existing ones in those markets. Disruption has occurred when their business model becomes mainstream.

So, a new company targets an overlooked customer base — and manages to deliver a better product at a lower price point. At first, the incumbents don’t take the threat seriously, which allows the potential disruptors to gain a foothold. Then the disruptors target the incumbents’ mainstream customers. If the potential disruptors create something that the mainstream adopts in volume, they have successfully disrupted the market.

I think this reading of the model overemphasizes the need to attack the low end of the market. Yes, that is a proven path, but it is not the only one. The iPhone disrupted from the high end, for example, as has Tesla.

What is disruptive innovation not?

Defining disruptive innovation isn’t easy and not everyone is going to agree on every example. Classic disruptive innovation should not simply describe just any situation of upheaval. If a new company shakes things up a bit for incumbent competitors, that scene is not necessarily one of disruptive innovation — that could simply be a breakthrough. In order for this theory to have power and be used as an analytical and predictive model, it needs to be precisely defined.

My definition of disruptive innovation is one that overthrows and is incompatible with the existing business model or operating model of an industry. In the case of the iPhone, it was Apple’s ability to go over the top of the carrier to provide products and services directly to the consumer. In the case of Tesla, it is its ability to bypass the dealership model not only in sales but in services as well.

Christensen, for example, argued that Uber is not a disruptive innovator according to his definition. It fails to meet two requirements, in that it did not start in a low-end or new market. Instead, it built a name for itself in a mainstream market and then started drawing unserved customers with less expensive solutions. And being less expensive or creating an app to hail rides sustains the existing model rather than disrupts.

This is just wrong and shows the limitations of the “start at the low end” concept. Uber reengineered both the operating model and the business model of on-demand car transportation, allowing consumers to call a taxi to themselves, and allowing Uber to build a fleet of cars and drivers at no capital expense.

Not everyone thinks that’s the case and other perspectives can be found that argue Uber actually is a disruptive innovator. From this perspective, Uber started with a low-market foothold by offering on-demand black car services. It was only when the startup introduced UberX, a low-end market offering, that it was able to move into the mainstream.

What counts as disruption is up for debate, especially as Christensen’s theory is applied to shifting contexts.

In the case of Uber, focusing on the low end simply misses the point.

Why is it important to define disruptive innovation?

Disruption isn’t a fixed point; it’s the evolution of a product or service from the fringes of customers to the mainstream. It’s important to define it this way because then it becomes more about the experimental nature of the process than about the output. See, disruptive innovations don’t always succeed and not every successful company is a disruptor. The process is about building new business models previously unseen in the target industry and appealing to a more niche customer base at first.

In my view, disruptive innovation is a function of a breakthrough technology intersecting with a pool of trapped value, enabling the reengineering of a system or process that eliminates one or more whole categories of spend in its value chain. It is a categorical innovation as opposed to a product or marketing innovation.

Is disruptive innovation the primary way innovation operates?

No, it is not the primary factor of innovation. According to HBR, “disruption theory does not, and never will, explain everything about innovation specifically or business success generally.” It does, however, help predict which businesses will succeed and it provides a solid foundation for further research – it’s captured academic attention for 27 years.

I agree with the point that disruptive innovation is not the primary type. Most innovation is sustaining, meaning that it improves an existing system rather than overthrowing it—evolution, not revolution. What I disagree with wholeheartedly, on the other hand, is the notion that the theory helps predict which businesses will succeed. Historically, the advantage has gone to start-ups because they are unconflicted in their commitment to the new way. Established enterprises, however, have learned that they can neutralize start-ups if they are willing to be fast followers. Microsoft’s Azure is a superb example of a company that has done this. Disney’s response to Netflix is another good example, and it appears as if General Motors is on a comparable path toward neutralizing Tesla.

What is an example of disruptive innovation?

Netflix was around since 1997, and at first, it didn’t appeal to Blockbuster’s core clientele. Renting movies usually happened in person, and Netflix was all online. Plus, Netflix took a few days to deliver movies because selections came through the mail. Blockbuster could easily ignore Netflix because it didn’t have the brick-and-mortar infrastructure needed to dominate the market at that time.

This glosses over what was the initial disruptive innovation that Netflix provided with its home delivery model based on DVDs. The key differentiator at the beginning was designing out late fees.

Over time though, as streaming technology developed, Blockbuster’s target clients were drawn toward Netflix. The same impulsiveness that made renting a movie right away more desirable than getting a movie a few days later translated into wanting to watch movies with a click of a mouse instead of going to a physical location to rent a DVD. Disruptive innovation technology, in this case, streaming, goes hand in hand with implementing innovation.

There is another story playing out in Netflix’s transition from DVD shipping to streaming. It required the company to disrupt itself. This is an extraordinary ask, as most successful disruptive innovations attack someone else’s profit pool, not one’s own. Reed Hastings deserves enormous credit for leading the company through this change, and I would encourage the academy to focus its research lens on how in the world he was able to do so when so many CEOs have fallen short.

Are there any disruptive innovation technologies to keep an eye on?

Online learning is a technology to watch because it’s reaching a population that in-person learning can’t reach at a lower price point.

The main technologies to keep an eye on are the ones that tackle an underserved market and have the potential to expand their offerings to appeal to the mainstream.

Something like autonomous vehicles, for example, can seem innovative, but they aren’t disruptive according to the theory because they’ll be quickly absorbed into existing industries. The incumbent advantage is strong.

The important thing to remember is that innovation does not always lead to disruption.

I strongly support the idea that online education delivery has the power to disrupt the education market—again, a breakthrough technology intersecting with a boatload of trapped value. I think the point about autonomous vehicles is interesting as well because I agree they will be absorbed into the existing industries. But while they may not disrupt the automotive industry, I do think they can reengineer transportation and logistics.

Overall, I support Shibu’s main thesis which is that we have come to take disruptive innovation for granted and have become careless with how we apply the term. And while we part ways on how best to apply it, I still endorse Clay’s breakthrough insights in The Innovator’s Dilemma, which had a huge impact on a whole generation of companies in Silicon Valley.

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

Image Credit: Pexels

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

The Reality Behind Netflix’s Amazing Success

Leave a reply

The Reality Behind Netflix's Amazing Success

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Today, it’s hard to think of Netflix as anything but an incredible success. Its business has grown at breakneck speed and now streams to 190 countries, yet it has also been consistently profitable, earning over $12 billion last year. With hit series like Orange is the New Black and Stranger Things, it broke the record for Emmy Nominations in 2018.

Most of all, the company has consistently disrupted the media business through its ability to relentlessly innovate. Its online subscription model upended the movie rental business and drove industry giant Blockbuster into bankruptcy. Later, it pioneered streaming video and introduced binge watching to the world.

Ordinarily, a big success like Netflix would offer valuable lessons for the rest of us. Unfortunately, its story has long been shrouded in myth and misinformation. That’s why Netflix Co-Founder Marc Randolph’s book, That Will Never Work, is so valuable. It not only sets the story straight, it offers valuable insight into how to create a successful business.

The Founding Myth

Anthropologists have long been fascinated by origin myths. The Greek gods battled and defeated the Titans to establish Olympus. Remus and Romulus were suckled by a she-wolf and then established Rome. Adam and Eve were seduced by a serpent, ate the forbidden fruit and were banished from the Garden of Eden.

The reason every culture invents origin myths is that they help make sense of a confusing world and reinforce the existing order. Before science, people were ill-equipped to explain things like disease and natural disasters. So, stories, even if the were apocryphal, gave people comfort that there was a rhyme and reason to things.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that an unlikely success such as Netflix has its own origin myth. As legend has it, Co-Founder Reed Hastings misplaced a movie he rented and was charged a $40 dollar late fee. Incensed, he set out to start a movie business that had no late fees. That simple insight led to a disruptive business model that upended the entire industry.

The truth is that late fees had nothing to do with the founding of Netflix. What really happened is that Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph, soon to be unemployed after the sale of their company, Pure Atria, were looking to ride the new e-commerce wave and become the “Amazon of” something. Netflix didn’t arise out of a moment of epiphany, but a process of elimination.

The Subscription Model Was an Afterthought

Netflix really got its start through a morning commute. As Pure Atria was winding down, Randolph and Hastings would drive together from Santa Crux on Highway 17 over the mountain into Silicon Valley. It was a long drive, which gave them lots of time to toss around e-commerce ideas that ranged from customized baseball bats to personalized shampoo.

The reason they eventually settled on movies was the introduction of DVD’s. In 1997, there were very few titles available, so stores didn’t stock them. They were also small and light and were easy to ship. Best of all, the movie studios recognized that they had made a mistake pricing movies on videotape too high and planned to offer DVD’s at a level consumers would buy them.

In the beginning, Netflix earned most of its money selling movies, not renting them. However, before long they realized that it was only a matter of time before Amazon and Walmart began selling DVD’s as well. Once that happened, it was unlikely that Netflix would be able to compete, and they would have to find a way to make the rental model work.

The subscription model began as an experiment. No one seemed to want to rent movies by mail, so they were desperate to find a different model and kept trying things until they hit on something that worked. It wasn’t part of a master plan, but the result of trial and error. “If you would have asked me on launch day to describe what Netflix would eventually look like,” Randolph wrote, “I would have never come up with a monthly subscription service.”

The Canada Principle

As Netflix began to grow it was constantly looking for ways to grow its business. One idea that continually came up was expanding to Canada. It’s just over the border, is largely English speaking, has a business-friendly regulatory environment and shares many cultural traits with the US. It just seemed like an obvious way to increase sales.

Yet they didn’t do it for two reasons. First, while Canada is very similar to the US, it is still another country, with its own currency, laws and other complicating factors. Also, while English is commonly spoken in most parts of Canada, in some regions French predominates. So, what looked simple at first had the potential to become maddeningly complex.

The second and more important reason was that it would have diluted their focus. Nobody has unlimited resources. You only have a certain number of people who can do a certain number of things. For every Canadian problem they had to solve, that was one problem that they weren’t solving in the much larger US business.

That became what Randolph called the “Canada Principle,” or the idea that you need to maximize your focus by limiting the number of opportunities that you pursue. It’s why they dropped DVD sales to focus on renting movies and then dropped a la carte rental to focus on the subscription business. That singularity of focus played a big part in Netflix’s success.

Nobody Knows Anything

Randolph’s mantra throughout the book is that “nobody knows anything.” He borrowed the phrase from the writer William Goldman’s memoir Adventures in the Screen Trade. What Goldman meant was that nobody truly knows how a movie will do until it’s out. Some movies with the biggest budgets and greatest stars flop, while some of the unlikeliest indy films are hits.

For Randolph though, it’s more of a guiding business philosophy. “For every good idea,” he says, “there are a thousand bad ideas it is indistinguishable from.” The only real way to tell the difference is to go out and try them, see what works, discard the failures and build on the successes. You have to, in other words, dare to be crap.

Over the years, I’ve had the chance to get to know hundreds of great innovators and they all tell a different version of the same story. While they often became known for one big idea, they had tried thousands of others before they arrived at the one that worked. It was perseverance and a singularity of focus, not a sudden epiphany, that made the difference.

That’s why the myth of the $40 late fee, while seductive, can be so misleading. What made Netflix successful wasn’t just one big idea. In fact, just about every assumption they made when they started the company was wrong. Rather, it was what they learned along the way that made the difference. That’s the truth of how Netflix became a media powerhouse.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Unsplash

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

Crowdsourcing Creativity

Leave a reply

Harnessing the Wisdom of the Collective

Crowdsourcing Creativity

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

For too long, innovation has been treated as an exclusive, top-down process. We build small, elite R&D teams, sequester them in innovation labs, and task them with generating the next breakthrough idea. While this model has produced many successes, it is fundamentally limited. It relies on the finite expertise of a select few and often suffers from groupthink, tunnel vision, and a detachment from the very customers it seeks to serve. As a human-centered change and innovation thought leader, I am here to argue that the most powerful engine of creativity is not a closed-door meeting, but the wisdom of the crowd. The future of innovation belongs to those who are willing to democratize the process and harness the boundless creativity of a diverse, global collective.

Crowdsourcing is more than just a buzzword; it is a strategic shift in mindset. It is the practice of outsourcing a task or problem to a large, undefined group of people, whether they are employees, customers, or the general public. By opening up the innovation process, organizations can access a level of diversity in thought and experience that no internal team could ever replicate. It moves the focus from a single point of origin to a decentralized network of passion, insight, and fresh perspective. The problems that have stumped your experts may be solved in minutes by someone with a completely different background. The key is to stop asking “who can solve this?” and start asking, “who might have a good idea?”

The Foundational Pillars of Crowdsourced Innovation

Successful crowdsourcing is not a random act of faith; it is a carefully designed, human-centered process built on a few core pillars:

Openness and Access: The first step is to break down the walls. Create a clear, low-friction platform where anyone can submit an idea. The easier it is to participate, the more diverse and numerous the ideas will be.
Specificity and Challenge: The “crowd” needs a clear, compelling problem to solve. A vague request will yield vague results. Frame the challenge in a way that is inspiring and provides enough context for people to contribute meaningful solutions.
Meaningful Incentives: People are motivated by more than just money. While cash prizes can be effective for technical challenges, a sense of purpose, recognition, or the opportunity to see their idea come to life can be just as, if not more, powerful.
Transparency and a Feedback Loop: The crowd needs to feel heard. Be transparent about the process—how ideas are evaluated, why some are chosen, and what happens to the winning submissions. Closing the loop by celebrating the contributors, even those whose ideas weren’t chosen, builds trust and encourages future participation.

“The best ideas don’t come from the people you pay to think; they come from the people who can’t stop thinking.” — Braden Kelley

Case Study 1: Lego Ideas – From Fan Passion to Product Powerhouse

The Challenge:

For decades, Lego relied on an internal team of master builders and designers to create new sets. While this produced incredible products, the company faced a challenge: how to tap into the passionate and creative community of Lego fans who were building their own amazing creations at home. This was a classic case of an innovation process being limited by its own walls.

The Crowdsourcing Solution:

Lego launched Lego Ideas (originally Lego Cuusoo), a brilliant crowdsourcing platform that turned its most loyal fans into an R&D department. The process is simple: anyone can submit an idea for a new Lego set. If the idea garners 10,000 votes from the community, Lego’s internal team reviews it. If it is chosen for production, the creator receives a percentage of the sales and credit for the design. This model is a masterclass in human-centered innovation.

Incentivized Engagement: The promise of having their design sold globally and receiving a portion of the profits is a powerful incentive for creators.
Built-in Feedback: The voting process acts as a powerful market validation tool. Lego gets instant feedback on which ideas resonate most strongly with their core audience.
Community Building: The platform transformed passive consumers into active co-creators. It fostered a vibrant, global community of builders who felt a deep sense of ownership and pride in the brand.

The Result:

Lego Ideas has been a resounding success, leading to the creation of some of Lego’s most popular and iconic sets, including the *Minecraft* series and the *Back to the Future* DeLorean. The program proved that the best ideas were not always in the boardroom but were being built in the homes of their most dedicated fans. It leveraged passion, talent, and a sense of shared purpose to build an innovation engine that is both profitable and profoundly human.

Case Study 2: The Netflix Prize – A Technical Challenge for a Global Crowd

The Challenge:

In the mid-2000s, Netflix was a DVD-by-mail service. A key part of its business model was its movie recommendation engine, which was good, but not great. Improving its accuracy by just a small percentage could lead to millions of dollars in savings and increased customer satisfaction. This was a highly technical, data-driven problem that had stumped its internal team of brilliant engineers.

The Crowdsourcing Solution:

Netflix took a bold and unconventional approach. They launched the Netflix Prize, a global crowdsourcing competition with a prize of $1 million to the first team that could improve their recommendation algorithm’s accuracy by 10%. They provided a massive dataset (anonymized, of course) and a clear, measurable goal. The contest was a highly structured, incentive-based crowdsourcing effort that attracted academics, data scientists, and engineers from around the world.

A Clear, Measurable Goal: The 10% improvement target was specific and quantifiable, which made the challenge compelling to a technical audience.
High-Stakes Incentive: The $1 million prize was a significant reward that attracted some of the world’s best minds in a way that traditional recruitment could not.
Intellectual Freedom: Netflix provided the problem and the data, but no one was constrained by internal bureaucracy, politics, or assumptions. The crowd was free to experiment without limits.

The Result:

The contest was a wild success. Over 40,000 teams from 186 countries participated. After three years, a collaborative team of researchers finally met the 10% goal, with the winning algorithm being an ensemble of different methods. The Netflix Prize not only solved a critical business problem but also created a new industry standard for recommendation engines and demonstrated the power of open innovation. It proved that for highly complex problems, the right answer may not be in your office, but in the collective genius of the global crowd.

Conclusion: The Future of Innovation is Collaborative

The era of closed-door innovation is over. In a world defined by complexity and rapid change, the ability to crowdsource creativity is a non-negotiable strategic capability. It’s about more than just getting new ideas; it’s about building a more resilient, connected, and human-centered organization. By treating your customers, employees, and the global community not as passive audiences but as active collaborators, you can tap into a wellspring of creativity that is truly infinite.

As leaders, our role is to move beyond the traditional models and create the platforms, the incentives, and the cultural mindset that empowers everyone to contribute. The most profound innovations of the future will not be created by a single genius in a lab, but by the collective wisdom of a motivated crowd. It’s time to open our doors and invite the world to help us build a better future, together.

Extra Extra: Futurology is not fortune telling. 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: Freepik

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

Detecting the Seeds of Future Innovation

Leave a reply

Weak Signals, Strong Insights

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In our hyper-connected world, we are inundated with information. Market data, analyst reports, and competitive intelligence systems all provide a clear picture of the present. But as a human-centered change and innovation thought leader, I argue that the most transformative opportunities don’t emerge from this flood of “strong signals.” They emerge from the subtle, often contradictory, and easily dismissed weak signals on the periphery. These are the whispers of change, the fringe trends, the unarticulated customer frustrations, and the strange technological mashups that hint at a future yet to be built. The ability to detect, interpret, and act on these weak signals is the single most powerful competitive advantage an organization can cultivate. It’s the difference between reacting to disruption and proactively creating it.

Weak signals are, by definition, not obvious. They are often dismissed as anomalies, niche behaviors, or fleeting fads. They can come from anywhere: a casual comment in a user forum, a viral video that defies a category, a surprising scientific breakthrough in an unrelated field, or a quiet startup with a baffling business model. The challenge for leaders is to move beyond the comfort of big data analytics and embrace the messy, qualitative, and deeply human work of foresight. This isn’t about guesswork; it’s about building a systematic, human-centered practice for sensing the future and turning those faint whispers into a clear vision for innovation.

Why Weak Signals are Your Best Innovation GPS

Cultivating a weak-signal detection capability offers profound benefits:

Foresight, Not Just Hindsight: While strong signals confirm what has already happened, weak signals provide clues about what is *about to* happen. This gives you a critical head start in preparing for, or even driving, market shifts.
The Source of True Disruption: Most truly disruptive innovations—from personal computing to smartphones—began as weak signals on the fringe, often dismissed by established players who were focused on optimizing their core business.
Uncovering Unmet Needs: Weak signals are often an early indicator of deep, unarticulated human needs. They are the seeds of a problem that a current market solution isn’t addressing.
Building a Culture of Curiosity: Actively looking for weak signals encourages a culture of curiosity, open-mindedness, and a willingness to challenge assumptions—all essential traits for innovation.

“Strong signals confirm your past. Weak signals whisper your future. The most innovative leaders are the best listeners.”

A Human-Centered Approach to Detecting Weak Signals

Detecting weak signals is not an automated process. It is a deeply human activity that requires a specific mindset and intentional practice:

Go to the Edge: Move beyond your core market and familiar customer base. Talk to fringe users, early adopters, and even those who reject your product. Spend time in adjacent industries and with unconventional thinkers.
Embrace a Beginner’s Mindset: Temporarily suspend your expertise. Look at your industry as if you are seeing it for the first time. Why do customers do what they do? What seems strange or inefficient to an outsider?
Connect the Unconnected Dots: A single weak signal means little. The true insight comes from identifying patterns. Is a new technology in one field combining with a new consumer behavior in another? The unexpected combination of two seemingly unrelated signals is often where the magic happens.
Create “Listening Posts”: Form small, cross-functional teams whose sole purpose is to scan the periphery. Empower them to read obscure journals, follow niche social media communities, and report back on anything that feels “off” or interesting.

Case Study 1: The Rise of Social Media – A Weak Signal Ignored by the Giants

The Challenge:

In the early 2000s, the internet was dominated by large, content-heavy portals like Yahoo! and search engines like Google. Communication was primarily through email and instant messaging. The idea of people building public profiles to share personal updates and connect with friends was seen as a niche, even trivial, activity. It was a weak signal, a seemingly minor behavior on college campuses.

The Weak Signal Ignored:

For established tech giants, the signal was too faint. They were focused on the strong signals of search queries and content monetization. Facebook, MySpace, and Friendster were dismissed as “just for kids” or a “niche social trend.” The idea of a public profile as a primary mode of online identity and communication was too far outside their core business model to be taken seriously. They saw a minor curiosity, not the future of human connection.

The Result:

The companies that paid attention to this weak signal—and understood the human-centered need for connection and self-expression—went on to build a multi-trillion-dollar industry. The giants who ignored it were forced to play a decade-long game of catch-up, and many lost their dominant position. The weak signal of a simple public profile evolved into the foundational architecture of the modern internet and the economy built on it. Their failure to see this wasn’t a failure of technology; it was a failure of imagination and human-centered listening.

Case Study 2: Netflix and the Streaming Revolution – From DVDs to a Weak Signal

The Challenge:

In the early 2000s, Blockbuster was the undisputed king of home entertainment. Their business model was robust, profitable, and built on a physical presence of thousands of stores and a lucrative late-fee system. The internet was a nascent and unreliable platform for video, and streaming was a faint, almost invisible signal on the horizon.

The Weak Signal Detected:

While Blockbuster was focused on optimizing its core business (e.g., store layout, inventory management), Netflix, then a DVD-by-mail service, saw a weak signal. The signal wasn’t just about faster internet; it was about the human frustration with late fees and the inconvenience of physical stores. The company’s leaders started to talk about the concept of “on-demand” content, long before the technology was ready. They were paying attention to the unarticulated desire for convenience and unlimited choice, a desire that was a whisper to Blockbuster but a deafening call to Netflix. They began to invest in streaming technology and content licensing years before it was profitable, effectively cannibalizing their own profitable DVD business.

The Result:

Blockbuster famously dismissed Netflix’s weak signal, seeing it as a minor inconvenience to their existing business model. They believed a physical store experience would always win. Netflix, by acting on the weak signal and a deep understanding of human frustration, was able to pivot from being a DVD service to the global streaming behemoth we know today. Their foresight, driven by a human-centered approach to a technological trend, allowed them to disrupt an entire industry and become a dominant force in the future of entertainment. Blockbuster, unable to see beyond the strong signals of its profitable past, is now a cautionary tale.

Conclusion: The Foresight Imperative

The future is not a surprise that happens to you. It is a collection of weak signals that you either choose to see or ignore. In an era of constant disruption, relying on strong signals alone is a recipe for stagnation. The most resilient and innovative organizations are those that have built a human-centered practice for sensing change on the periphery. They have created a culture where curiosity is a core competency and where questioning the status quo is a daily ritual.

As leaders, our most critical role is to shift our focus from optimizing the past to sensing the future. We must empower our teams to go to the edge, listen to the whispers, and connect the dots in new and creative ways. The future of your industry is already being born, not in the center of the market, but on its fringes. The question is, are you listening?

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Your Brand Isn’t the Problem

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Cigarette companies rebranded themselves because their products caused cancer and they wanted to separate themselves from how their customers experienced their products. Their name and logo (which stand for their brand) were mapped to bad things (cancer) so they changed their name and logo. The bad things still happened, but the company was one step removed. There was always the option to stop causing cancer and to leave the name and logo as-is, but that would have required a real change, difficult change, a fundamental change. Instead of stopping the harm, cigarette companies ran away from their heritage and rebranded.

Facebook rebranded itself because its offering caused cancer of a different sort. And they, too, wanted to separate themselves from how their customers experienced their offering. The world mapped the Facebook brand to bullying, harming children, and misinformation that destroyed institutions. Sure, Facebook had the option to keep the name and logo and stop doing harm, but they chose to keep the harm and change the name and logo. Like the cigarette companies, they chose to keep the unskillful behavior and change their brand to try to sidestep their damaging ways. Yes, they could have changed their behavior and kept their logo, but they chose to change their logo and double down on their unhealthy heritage.

The cigarette companies and Facebook didn’t rebrand themselves to move toward something better, they rebranded to run away from the very thing they created, the very experience they delivered to their customers. In that way, they tried to distance themselves from their offering because their offering was harmful. And in that way, rebranding is most often about moving away from the experience that customers experience. And in that way, rebranding is hardly ever about moving toward something better.

One exception I can think of is a special type of rebranding that is a distillation of the brand, where the brand name gets shorter. Several made-up examples: Nike Shoes to Nike; McDonald’s Hamburgers to McDonald’s; and Netflix Streaming Services to Netflix. In all three cases, the offering hasn’t changed and customers still recognize the brand. Everyone still knows it’s all about cool footwear, a repeatable fast-food experience, and top-notch entertainment content. If anything, the connection with the heritage is concentrated and strengthened and the appeal is broader. If your rebranding makes the name longer or the message more nuanced, you get some credit for confusing your customers, but you don’t qualify for this special exception.

If you want to move toward something better, it’s likely better to keep the name and logo and change the offering to something better. Your brand has history and your customers have mapped the goodness you provide to your name and logo. Why not use that to your advantage? Why not build on what you’ve built and morph it slowly into something better? Why not keep the brand and improve the offering? Why not remap your good brand to an improved offering so that your brand improves slowly over time? Isn’t it more effective to use your brand recognition as the mechanism to attract attention to your improved offering?

In almost all cases, rebranding is a sign that something’s wrong. It’s expensive, it consumes a huge amount of company resources, and there’s little to no direct benefit to customers. When you feel the urge to rebrand, I strongly urge you to keep the brand and improve your offering. That way your customers will benefit and your brand will improve.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Empowering Employees Through Autonomy and Trust

Leave a reply

The Flexible Workforce

Empowering Employees Through Autonomy and Trust

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

From my perspective here in the United States, where the blend of thriving tech companies and a strong sense of community highlights the importance of individual well-being, I’ve observed a fundamental shift in what employees expect from their work. The traditional model of rigid schedules and top-down control is increasingly outdated. Today’s workforce, driven by a desire for purpose, balance, and control over their lives, thrives in environments that embrace flexibility, autonomy, and trust. Building a flexible workforce is not just a perk; it’s a strategic imperative for attracting and retaining top talent, fostering innovation, and creating a resilient organization in an era of constant change.

The concept of a flexible workforce goes beyond just remote work. It encompasses a range of arrangements that empower employees to manage their time, their work location, and even the way they approach their tasks. This can include flexible start and end times, compressed workweeks, job sharing, and the freedom to choose where they work best. The underlying principle is a shift from managing inputs (hours worked, physical presence) to focusing on outputs (results achieved). This requires a significant leap of faith from traditional management, a move away from surveillance and towards a culture built on mutual trust and accountability. When employees are given autonomy, they are more likely to be engaged, motivated, and creative, leading to higher productivity and a stronger sense of ownership over their work.

Creating a truly flexible workforce requires a human-centered approach that considers the diverse needs and preferences of your employees. It’s not about a one-size-fits-all policy, but about creating a framework that allows for individual choices within clear guidelines. Key elements for building this empowering environment include:

Clear Communication and Expectations: Establishing clear goals, deadlines, and performance metrics is crucial when employees have more control over their work. Regular and transparent communication is essential to ensure everyone is aligned.
Investing in Technology and Infrastructure: Providing employees with the tools and resources they need to work effectively from any location is a fundamental requirement for successful flexibility.
Fostering a Culture of Trust and Accountability: Shifting the focus from monitoring time to evaluating results requires a strong foundation of trust. Employees need to feel empowered to make decisions and be accountable for their outcomes.
Providing Training and Support for Remote Teams: Ensuring that remote employees feel connected and have the support they need to collaborate effectively and maintain a strong sense of belonging.
Regularly Evaluating and Adapting Policies: Flexibility is not static. Regularly seeking feedback from employees and adapting policies to meet evolving needs is essential for long-term success.

Case Study 1: Netflix’s Culture of Freedom and Responsibility

The Challenge: Scaling Innovation and Maintaining High Performance in a Rapidly Growing Company

Netflix, the streaming entertainment giant, has built a renowned culture based on “Freedom & Responsibility.” This philosophy permeates every aspect of their operations, including how they approach work and empower their employees. In a highly competitive and rapidly evolving industry, Netflix recognized that attracting and retaining top talent, and fostering a culture of innovation, required a departure from traditional hierarchical structures.

Embracing Autonomy and Trust:

Netflix provides its employees with significant autonomy in how they do their work. They have very few formal policies around things like vacation time or work hours. Instead, they emphasize results and trust their employees to manage their time effectively to achieve those results. The company’s “keeper test” – the question managers should ask themselves about whether they would fight hard to keep an employee – reinforces a focus on high performance and mutual respect. This high degree of freedom is coupled with a high degree of responsibility; employees are expected to be self-disciplined, proactive, and deliver exceptional work. The transparency around company goals and performance metrics ensures everyone understands the expectations and the impact of their contributions.

The Impact:

Netflix’s culture of freedom and responsibility has been instrumental in its success. It has enabled them to attract and retain some of the best talent in the world, foster a highly innovative environment, and adapt quickly to the ever-changing landscape of the entertainment industry. Employees feel empowered and trusted, leading to high levels of engagement and commitment. While this model requires a mature and high-performing workforce, it demonstrates the powerful results that can be achieved when an organization truly empowers its employees through autonomy and trust.

Key Insight: A culture built on freedom and responsibility, where employees are trusted to manage their work and are held accountable for results, can drive innovation and attract top talent in highly competitive industries.

Case Study 2: GitLab’s Distributed-First Approach to Work

The Challenge: Building a Global Company Without Physical Offices

GitLab, a company that provides a web-based DevOps platform, has embraced a fully distributed work model from its inception. With employees spread across over 65 countries, GitLab has intentionally designed its entire operating model around flexibility, autonomy, and asynchronous communication. For GitLab, flexibility isn’t just a perk; it’s the foundation of how they build and run their global business.

Empowering a Remote Workforce:

GitLab has developed comprehensive documentation and clear processes to enable effective collaboration across time zones and locations. They heavily rely on asynchronous communication tools and emphasize written communication to ensure clarity and transparency. Employees have significant autonomy over their work schedules and locations, as long as they deliver results. GitLab fosters a strong sense of trust by empowering individuals to make decisions and take ownership of their work. They also invest in regular virtual social events and encourage in-person meetups to build connections and maintain a strong company culture despite the lack of physical offices. Their “bias for asynchronous communication” empowers employees to work when and where they are most productive, maximizing individual autonomy while ensuring team alignment.

The Impact:

GitLab’s distributed-first approach has allowed them to tap into a global talent pool, build a diverse and inclusive workforce, and operate with significant efficiency. Their success demonstrates that a fully flexible work model, built on clear processes, trust, and effective communication, can not only work but can be a significant competitive advantage. By empowering employees with complete autonomy over their work environment, GitLab has fostered a highly engaged and productive workforce that is well-equipped to navigate the complexities of a global, distributed company.

Key Insight: A fully distributed work model, built on trust, clear communication, and a focus on asynchronous collaboration, can enable organizations to access global talent, enhance efficiency, and empower employees with maximum autonomy.

The Future is Flexible

Across the globe, the future of work is undoubtedly flexible. Organizations that recognize the power of autonomy and trust, and actively work to empower their employees with greater control over their work lives, will be the ones that attract the best talent, foster the most innovation, and build the most resilient and engaged workforces. The shift from a culture of control to a culture of trust requires a fundamental change in mindset, but the rewards—in terms of employee well-being, productivity, and organizational success—are well worth the journey. Embracing the flexible workforce is not just about adapting to the present; it’s about building a better future for work.

Image credit: Unsplash

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

Balancing Creativity and Feasibility in Innovation

Leave a reply

Balancing Creativity and Feasibility in Innovation

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

Innovation. The very word pulsates with the promise of progress, often conjuring visions of breakthroughs that reshape industries and improve lives. Yet, beneath the glamour of the “aha!” moment lies a truth often overlooked: a brilliant idea, no matter how disruptive, is merely a whisper in the wind until it can be brought to tangible reality. This is the central paradox, the vital tension, at the heart of truly impactful innovation: the intricate dance between unbridled creativity and grounded feasibility.

Far too often, organizations stumble by overemphasizing one aspect at the expense of the other. Some become playgrounds for “innovation theater,” where whiteboard sessions brim with fantastical concepts, yet none ever see the light of day. These companies generate a flurry of ideas but lack the rigor to assess and execute them. Conversely, others are so risk-averse and steeped in pragmatism that their innovation becomes painfully incremental. They prioritize what’s immediately achievable, effectively stifling any truly transformative thinking and missing the larger opportunities that emerge from challenging the status quo.

“Ideas are easy. Execution is everything.” – John Doerr, Kleiner Perkins

The Indispensable Partnership: Creativity & Feasibility

Imagine creativity as the boundless ocean – vast, deep, and full of unexplored possibilities. It’s the engine of divergent thinking, pushing us to challenge assumptions, question norms, and explore uncharted territories. It asks, “What if? What else could we do? How might we completely reimagine this?”

Feasibility, then, is the experienced navigator and the robust ship. It represents convergent thinking, meticulously evaluating constraints, assessing available resources, and charting a realistic, sustainable course. It asks, “Can we truly build this? Is it sustainable at scale? Do we have the necessary resources and capabilities? What are the inherent risks, and how can we mitigate them?”

The magic happens not when one dominates the other, but when they engage in a continuous, iterative dialogue. An initial creative spark is immediately subjected to a feasibility lens. This check doesn’t kill the idea; rather, it often sparks *new* creative solutions to overcome identified obstacles, refine the concept, or pivot towards an even stronger, viable solution. It’s a cyclical process, a perpetual feedback loop where each refines and strengthens the other.

Case Study 1: Apple’s iPhone – Synthesizing Vision with Viability

Apple’s iPhone – Synthesizing Vision with Viability

When Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone in 2007, it wasn’t just another mobile phone. It was a audacious creative leap – a seamless convergence of a phone, a widescreen iPod, and a breakthrough internet device, all controlled by a revolutionary multi-touch interface. The vision was to eliminate physical buttons, create an intuitive operating system from scratch, and integrate a vast, extensible application ecosystem.

However, the true genius of Apple wasn’t just in the audacious creative vision; it was in their unparalleled mastery of feasibility. They didn’t just dream big; they possessed the engineering prowess, supply chain expertise, and manufacturing discipline to turn that dream into a polished, mass-market reality. They painstakingly solved immense technical hurdles: perfecting the responsive multi-touch screen, miniaturizing powerful processors, optimizing battery life for constant connectivity, and building a robust, scalable software platform (iOS) that could attract developers. This wasn’t merely invention; it was the meticulous synthesis of creative foresight with an unwavering commitment to practical execution and scalability. Apple understood that for the creative vision to truly disrupt, it had to be undeniably *feasible*.

Case Study 2: Blockbuster vs. Netflix – The Peril of Myopic Feasibility

Blockbuster vs. Netflix – The Peril of Myopic Feasibility

Consider the stark contrast between Blockbuster and Netflix. Blockbuster, once the reigning king of video rentals, was deeply anchored in the feasibility of its existing physical store model. Their enormous physical infrastructure, established supply chains, and predictable revenue from late fees represented a very profitable, tangible business. When a nascent Netflix proposed a mail-order DVD service (a creative new approach), Blockbuster famously dismissed it, seeing it as a niche, unfeasible threat to their dominant brick-and-mortar empire.

Netflix, on the other hand, embraced a creative vision of convenience and accessibility that challenged the norm. They started with a relatively simple, feasible model (DVDs by mail) and continually iterated, demonstrating the feasibility of streaming and eventually content production. Blockbuster’s fatal flaw was allowing the perceived short-term feasibility and profitability of their existing model to blind them to the disruptive creative potential of a new one. Their inability to pivot and invest in a new, feasible model for digital distribution, even when the market signals were clear, led to their eventual demise. Netflix, by continuously balancing its creative vision for entertainment delivery with the evolving feasibility of technology, conquered the market.

Cultivating the Innovation Sweet Spot

So, how can organizations consciously foster this crucial balance? It demands a deliberate, integrated approach:

Embrace Structured Ideation & Rigorous Filtering: Encourage boundless brainstorming sessions, but immediately follow with structured evaluation frameworks that assess both creative potential (novelty, value proposition) and practical viability (technical feasibility, market fit, resource requirements).
Assemble Cross-Functional Catalysts: Break down silos. Bring together diverse perspectives – creative thinkers (designers, strategists), technical experts (engineers, data scientists), and operational pragmatists (finance, supply chain). This diversity ensures ideas are challenged and refined from all angles.
Prototype and Test Relentlessly (Lean & Agile): Don’t strive for perfection upfront. Build Minimum Viable Products (MVPs) and prototypes quickly to test core assumptions about both user desirability (creative validation) and technical/business feasibility. Iterate rapidly based on real-world feedback, making feasibility an ongoing learning process, not a final gate.
Develop Clear Innovation Pathways: Establish transparent stages in your innovation funnel where ideas are not just generated but rigorously evaluated and refined against both creative aspiration and practical viability criteria. This ensures a healthy pipeline of both breakthrough and incremental innovations.
Cultivate a Culture of Psychological Safety: People must feel empowered to propose radical ideas without fear of immediate dismissal, and equally safe to voice genuine concerns about feasibility without being labeled as negative or unsupportive. Open, honest dialogue is paramount.

Ultimately, true innovation isn’t about conjuring magic; it’s about disciplined imagination. It’s understanding that the most brilliant ideas are only half the battle. The other, often more challenging half, is the art and science of transforming that brilliance into tangible value for customers and the organization. By consciously nurturing the dynamic interplay between creativity and feasibility, organizations can transcend mere ideation and consistently deliver impactful innovation that truly reshapes the future.

Image credit: Pexels

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