Monday, March 29, 2010
#
Ah, April Fools’ Day – that 24-hour period when we can play harmless pranks and practical jokes on those who are near and dear to us.
I'll be co-hosting an April Fools’ Innochat about “Missing The Innovation Boat.” We’ll spend our time discussing how and why companies give away, pass on, or are completely overlook innovation opportunities.
To jumpstart our thinking, I’ll offer what I consider to be two reasons companies miss the innovation boat:
1. Listening To What Consumers Have To Say Often companies will conduct focus groups to determine whether an idea has merit; unfortunately, consumers aren’t always able to see the potential of an idea right away, particularly when they are asked to evaluate it quickly and without much-needed context. I came across this wonderful YouTube video about killing good ideas. Not only is it entertaining, but for those of us who have been behind the glass and in front of it, it’s so very true.
2. Drawing Conclusions Based On Personal Behavior & Habits How often have we seen initiatives cut short because an executive could not related personally to an idea? Here’s an example from “Why Ideas Rejected By Big Corporations May Profit Small Entrepreneurs” by Ronald Manalastas:
In the 1970s, a leading firm in the industry of importing and selling beverages had declined the idea of importing bottled water. The big boss categorically said, who would need water in bottles when you can simply get it from the tap, and who would want to buy sparkling water? The unknowing boss thought that there was no market in the US for mineral water such as Perrier, Evian, and San Pellegrino. The water was being drunk by millions of Europeans and Americans travelling to Europe, or with European origin. This addressable business potential gave the entrepreneur the courage to begin importing bottled water after establishing a small company, and the small business has become a large and thriving corporation.
And a bit of fun for you… While I was looking for framing content I came across this Send Your Idea To The Fire site. Just something to keep you smilin’ while striving to keep those around you from being Innovation April fools.
As always, your comments are welcome. See everyone Thursday 4/1 at noon EST!
Gwen
@Gwen_Ishmael
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
#
While flying from NYC back to Dallas this morning I took part in an excellent Twitterchat about "Knowledge in Innovation" led by Christian De Neef (@CDN) at #KMers.
The topic of using communities of practice (CoPs) as innovation sources came up, and I mentioned I'd used them in the past and had found them to be excellent sources if guided well. @AndreaMeyer asked what recommendations I had regarding guidance, and before I could answer the WiFi connection was turned off. :-)
So, in answer to Andrea’s question, here are six things I would recommend when working with CoPs as well as other types of communities. (By the way, these recommendations are covered in detail in a white paper I co-authored called “Enhancing the Open Model Through the Use of Community.”)
1. Start With A Clear Purpose – Answering this question early will keep your efforts on track. Do you really need innovative thinking, or something else called for, such as the sharing of best practices?
2. Determine Who To Involve – Just because someone is a CoP member doesn’t mean they’ll be a good source of innovative ideas. Typically, my innovation activities with CoPs have involved a relatively small subset of community members – those who are capable of and willing to offer innovative suggestions. Spend time identifying the characteristics, behaviors, attitudes, and interests of your “ideal” contributor, and then create a profile of who you should involve. Also, there isn’t a magic number regarding how many people to involve; but keep in mind the larger the group, the more challenging it can be to keep everyone engaged and productive.
3. The third recommendation is to communicate parameters and the end goal clearly and appropriately to the participants. Innovation flourishes in a clearly-defined environment, one in which individuals can work together toward a common goal rather than wander aimlessly by themselves. Regardless of how innovative the members are, in order for them to offer creative, actionable contributions, they must understand the goals and what they have to work with.
4. The fourth recommendation (and this is probably one of the more difficult recommendations to implement) is to create an appropriate innovation environment. This doesn't necessarily mean sitting on the floor and playing with toys. However, if CoP participants are to offer up innovation suggestions and ideas, often they have to “leave their expertise at the door” – at least for a while. This is a situation in which being a subject matter expert can constrict innovation rather than enhance it. There is an appropriate time for asking questions, discussing pros and cons, and offering up past learnings, but it’s not while looking for sources of innovation.
5. If you intend use CoPs as innovation sources on an ongoing basis, make sure to motivate the participants in meaningful ways. Often a public acknowledgement of participants' contributions can be sufficient.
6. Again, if you intend to continue to tap into CoPs for innovative ideas, be sure to assess each person’s participation; if their contributions aren’t what you had hoped, don’t involve them next time. This can be done subtly so no one becomes disgruntled or feels disappointed. Participants can be given a “vacation” providing new people with the opportunity to participate in projects.
Hopefully you'll find these recommendations helpful; and as always, comments are welcome!
Gwen Ishmael
@Gwen_Ishmael
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
#
For those of you on the lookout for various social media and/or collaborative innovation tools, I've pulled together a comprehensive list of the various social media tools and platforms discussed during last week's Innochat - "Social Media In Innovation".
I've opted to group them by contributor so you can quickly see who to ping on Twitter should you want more information. (Wish I also could have grouped them by functionality, but I'm not familiar with them all.)
If you've used any of these or have heard comments about them, please share that info by leaving a reply. And of course, please add to the list
If you haven’t joined us for Innochat, please do! Every Thursday at noon EST 30+ innovation practitioners get together for an hour to discuss best practices, tools, and timely topics. I’d recommend going to www.tweetchat.com, log in using your Twitter ID, and enter #innochat into the search field.
Hope to see you on Thursdays!
Gwen
Gwen_Ishmael
AndreaMeyer: @spigit 's idea market capabilities are very interesting & being tested by various Co's. Now an SMB version,too
AndreaMeyer: enterprise tools like @inventionmachin 's #Goldfire enable both #KM & SM
AndreaMeyer: I'd add wikis as way to manage the knowledge as well #KM
AndreaMeyer: InnovationSpigit by @spigit allows #sm for #innovation by voting on ideas, collab building, metrics
AndreaMeyer: wikis as tool to help build on & develop ideas
BlakeGroup: And more: IdeaNet Also: Bright Ideas + Kindling + Innocentive (TY @bpluskowski !)
BlakeGroup: So far: InnovationSpigit by @spigit + #goldfire by @inventionmachine + Idea Central from Imaginatik + storycapture.org
bpluskowski: #Spigit also has an interesting Idea market concept that attracts a lot of curiosity from companies I've spoken to
bpluskowski: @chuckfrey also has some good reviews on his website http://www.innovationtools.com
bpluskowski: many more out there too - Innocentive, Bright ideas, Kindling, and not even counting all the PLM vendors
ColetteCote: IdeaNet also allows 4 idea vetting, open voting & commenting on/adding new ideas.
ColetteCote: SM monitoring, a la Radian6, for ex.
ColetteCote: We use IdeaNet web-based sm platform 4 open & sponsored innovation challenges internally.
ColetteCote: Yammer is gr8t internal #sm platform 2 help drive #innovation globally/cross-org.
cwebpresence: …I'm not sure I would look at Wordpress as a secure collaborative platform for ongoing R&D.
cwebpresence: Ning should work quite well for closed team collab. It's has complete tool set including live chat room.
cwebpresence: P.S. .. I use Ning (BIG fan) .. and, re: Open Source tools.. well.. one needs some technical knowledge to maintain use thereof.
cwebpresence: With Ning one can have specific sub-groups for specific projects, categorized forum, full team member profiles, etc.
DawnEva: Check this out if you're looking for more feedback about Radian6, http://bit.ly/Feedback
DrewCM: …tools to dialogue/capture (Twitter, FB) and tools for KM (Ning, wikis, SharePoint, etc.)
Gwen_Ishmael: I also use Scout Labs - quite similar to Radian6, but less expensive
innovate: In addition to Radian 6 - Visible Technologies also makes #sm monitoring tools
JohnReaves: …Our tool (storycapture.org) also based on Drupal!
jpamental: …in a trial now with Cox for a 'super high speed' internet offering, with a closed Ning comm. for feedback
jpamental: Have worked on a prototype based in Drupal to foster innovation challenges w/submission, commenting, voting & added roles 4 (cont)
jpamental: that's the great thing with Drupal, others: can foster both KM and SM, and time the results together in 1 place
jpamental: Wide open: FB, LinkedIn, Twitter.Ning can be open or closed. Yammer (Twitter for enterprise)-internal
jpamental: Wikis and other CMS options (Drupal, etc) can be set up open or closed (i.e. registration required/approval, etc)
mneff: …we move the discussion into a focused collaboration event in Idea Central when ready (to begin analysis).
mneff: Search their name, their products, their services, see if they have a twitter name - see what they are tweeting about.
mneff: We use Idea Central from Imaginatik. Very useful for focused collaboration and business initiatives management.
rtkrum: We could setup a collaborative review of #sm tools and let people add pros & cons. Maybe using MindMeister or a Wiki
sourcepov: Online www is outbound published IP. Internal IP needs secure platform: Cubetree, Basecamp, etc
sourcepov: Free? You're in luck .. pbworks, ning, drupal, joomla, cubetree, etc .. of course, there's a people cost ..
sourcepov: How to use #sm to better understand our competition? - Many forget that you can just search Twitter!
sourcepov: I did a short list of my favorites in comments on Gwen's framing post http://ow.ly/Z0hK - Twitter, Tweetchat, Wordpress, PBworks, Basecamp, Cubetree, Socialtext
sourcepov: One thing I like about Wordpress as platform: All content exportable. Can change themes/skin. No lock-in. Low risk.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
#
The 2009-2010 bowl season is coming to a close, and it has been an interesting one. The SMU Mustangs made a triumphant return to post-season play after a 25-year absence; Texas Tech stood firm in the face of one of the most bizarre firing scenarios in recent memory, as did the Gators after losing their head coach; and Idaho (yes, Idaho) won with a two-point conversion with four seconds remaining.
Last September I wrote about innovation in football on www.ideaflow.com – specifically about the A-11 offense adopted by some high school teams, and (now former) Texas Tech coach Mike Leach’s unorthodox passing strategy. This Thursday from 12:00 – 1:00 pm Eastern time we’ll continue the conversation about innovation and football via Twitter on #innochat.
One thing I’m particularly interested in discussion is why football, particularly at the high school and college levels, is an area in which innovation seems to flourish. What conditions, dynamics, incentives, and/or competitive environments exist that make this the case? And conversely, what are the circumstances under which innovation takes a back seat?
I’d also like to discuss how various organizational structures either help or hinder innovation. Consider the “coach apparent” hiring approach used by programs such as the University of Texas and Florida State under which an assistant is pre-designated as being the next head coach – what impact might that have on innovation?
To contribute your thoughts and suggestions for other topics, please reply below or join us this Thursday at noon EST. Just to go www.tweetchat.com and enter #innochat in the search field. See you then!
Gwen
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
#
As some of you know, I participate in a couple of weekly Twitter-based chats, including #innochat, a Thursday 12:00 – 1:00 pm Eastern time discussion about 'High Velocity Innovation' Producing Better Results in Less Time.”
Our 06 November #Innochat topic will be: How To Be Innovative In A Non-Innovative Culture.” Most companies appear to acknowledge the need to create a culture of innovation and the benefits of doing so. However, this is a monumental task, and few corporations have been able to accomplish this goal. The resulting reality is that many of us still are faced with the challenge of being innovative in innovation-resistant environments.
For those of you interested in joining us, I thought it might be helpful to ponder a few things prior to our discussion:
- Most of us probably think of corporations when hearing the term “non-innovative culture.” However, schools, churches, governments, and even relationships could be described as having innovation-resistant environments. Perhaps keeping those things in mind could stimulate some interesting discussion.
- Suppose for a minute that creating a culture of innovation is beyond our capacity, or that we’re just not going to get the support we’d like. Given those circumstances, what things might we be able to do?
- What kinds of relationships and alliances need to be created in order to successfully innovate in a non-innovative environment?
- What risks do we undertake when we try to be innovative in a culture that isn’t, and how can those risks be reduced?
- And here’s a link to an innovation article called “The Innovator’s Survival Guide” from Innosight’s October 29, 2008 Strategy & Innovation, courtesy of Renee Hopkins @Renee_Innosight
Join us if you can on 06 November at 12:00 – 1:00 pm Eastern. If you can’t be there, I’ll post a recap of the discussion right here on www.ideaflow.com.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
#
Social media ROI - probably one of the most perplexing issues around.
I will be guest moderating a Twittersation at #smchat on October 7, 2009 with Olivier Blanchard, principal and senior strategist at The BrandBuilder Marketing and social media ROI thought leader. Please join us!
If you’re not familiar with Olivier’s work, I’d recommend checking out his most recent blog post “Calling Foul On Bogus Social Media Experts. Again.” and "The Definitive Social Media ROI Presentation”.
Here’s an initial agenda:
- Quick introductions and why SM ROI is of interest for and/or SM ROI challenges you face. (All attendees)
- The state of SM ROI measurement (Olivier)
- Key steps in effectively measuring ROI (Olivier)
- Other SM ROI considerations (Olivier)
- Addressing SM ROI challenges (Q&A with Olivier and open discussion)
If you'd like to join us, the Twittersation will be held from 1:00 - 2:30 Eastern on October 7th. I'd recommend using TweetChat rather than Twitter - there's less lag time and the discussion seems to move more smoothly. Just go to TweetChat, sign in using your Twitter account, and then enter #smchat in the "Hashtag to follow" box.
Hope to see you there!
Gwen
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
#
I’ve wanted to post about football and innovation for a while, and now seems to be a good time for a couple of reasons. First, previous IdeaFlow author and good friend Renee Hopkins inspired me with her excellent post, Football Scores with Constraint-Driven Innovation. Plus, the Texas Tech (my alma mater) vs. University of Texas game is rapidly approaching, so football is top of mind for me this week.
In her post, Renee talked about two constraints that drive high schools and colleges to be more innovative than the pros:
1) Unavailability of talent–high schools have the least amount of choice when it comes to their rosters; therefore, their coaches must find creative ways to make a team that has relatively few talented players competitive.
2) The set of rules and its associated loopholes that governs the game. These rules have given rise to California’s Piedmont High School’s innovative A-11 offensive set in which all 11 players are potentially eligible to catch the ball on every down.
It struck me that these restrictions are not unlike those we face as innovators. In many cases, we don’t have the luxury of looking elsewhere for money or talent; yet innovation can spring from thinking creatively about how to best use our limited resources. Likewise, if we examine them closely, the rules under which our businesses operate can actually work to our advantage, inspiring us to look at situations and solutions in new ways.
Business and football share a couple of other constraints. For example, both have long, ingrained histories regarding strategies and game plans that are acceptable and successful and those that are not. Yet those time-proven conventions can serve as springboards to innovation, as Texas Tech (arguably one of the most innovative teams in recent college football history) has shown. For those who are not familiar with Tech’s approach, here’s an excerpt from the feature article in this month’s Texas Monthly, “Mike Leach Is Thinking...”
“Instead of a dense, seemingly impenetrable offensive line, Tech’s linemen are spaced three to four feet apart, twice the norm, leaving enormous gaps that seem to invite tackles and linebackers to stroll right through them. The quarterback operates from the shotgun, and on most plays four or five receivers are spread across the breadth of the field. This creates huge amounts of space between players, making the whole thing look porous and vulnerable, even skeletal, until it swings into action. Which it does between 85 and 90 times a game. A typical offense snaps the ball 65 to 70 times a game, but Tech never huddles. It is all attack, all the time. …Receivers stretch the field from chalk to chalk, taking the defensive backs with them. The defensive linemen—who are forced to spread out too, lest they lose their rushing angles—must therefore attack from longer range, creating even more room. Suddenly the grid opens up, and the quarterback is looking at what [Coach Mike] Leach calls ‘pieces of space.’ Lots of them.”
In this case, Leach studied what historically has been deemed an ineffective approach (an offensive line full of holes) and made it the cornerstone of his team’s success. And businesses have the opportunity to do the same thing. The highly successful Olay Regenerist line is the direct result of Procter & Gamble’s willingness to turn its internal R&D legacy on its head and commit to accessing 50% of its new ideas, technologies, and products from outside the company.
Another shared constraint is that of simplicity. Generally speaking, the more complex an innovation–whether in football or business–the more difficult its road to success. And yet time after time we see companies assuming that bells-and-whistles products hold the key to their next breakthrough. Likewise, many sports authorities have presumed complexity and intricacy underlies Tech’s offense; yet in actuality it consists of fewer than two dozen plays. In much the same way, disruptive innovation (as defined by Clayton Christensen) often involves simplification rather than the introduction of complexity. Just look at the Flip, which has changed the consumer video camera landscape; or blogging’s shake up of traditional content management.
So as you cheer on your favorite teams this weekend, regardless of whether they win, lose or tie, remember you could be watching a metaphor for the next amazing innovation.
Wreck ‘em, Tech! (Couldn't resist!)
- Gwen Smith Ishmael
www.twitter.com/Gwen_Ishmael
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
#
Recently, I was listening to Hugh Hewitt interview Clayton Christensen about his book, Innovator's Prescription in which he makes a case for using rules-based therapy in the treatment of healthcare events. (Essentially, by asking a series of questions the cause of many health issues could be correctly diagnosed and treated by a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant. This would result in more efficient, less expensive service and the freeing up of doctors to focus on more complex health problems.)
When asked if people would accept rules-based therapy and treatment administered by someone other than a doctor, Christensen’s response took me by surprise. He replied that the next generation will accept rules-based diagnosis more than they will a doctor’s intuition.
What was so surprising was not the premise that subsequent generations will embrace things and practices not accepted today – there are many examples of that progression of behavior. What caused me pause is that I had always assumed people would want a doctor rather than a skilled medical technician as immutable – a sacred-cow-like premise that would never change.
Whether Christensen is right or not really isn’t the relevant issue for this posting. Rather, it’s what other “sacred cows” actually aren’t. And if they aren’t sacred, what doors then open to innovation that previously have been closed?
In hindsight it’s easy to spot cows that have been held sacred in error, and as a result held back innovation:
- The world is flat.
- The earth is the center of the universe.
- Effective communication must take place in person.
Looking back, they seem almost comical. But what about current-day sacred cows? Consider what innovation might be possible if these were no longer immutable truths:
- Green living is inconsistent with living inexpensively.
- Aging is inevitable.
- Economies are driven by commerce.
- Personal information should remain personal.
- Home ownership is forever.
Who knows whether viable ideas might come from challenging these sacred cows. Regardless, it’s a good reminder to identify our assumptions, no matter how absolute they seem, and challenge them regularly to achieve truly breakthrough innovation.
- Gwen Smith Ishmael
Monday, July 20, 2009
#
I came across an interesting story that I thought I’d pass along that should inspire all my fellow classic auto-enthusiasts.
Jay Leno conquered late night television for 17 years, but even with his clout it can be downright impossible to find replacement parts for some of his vintage cars. A recent article from Popular Mechanics revealed that Leno was able to SCAMPER his way to an interesting solution.
For those that are unfamiliar, SCAMPER is an innovation tool developed by Bob Eberle to use when all else has failed. The acronym stands for:
Rather than having a machinist attempt to craft the parts by hand, which is essentially a trial and error process, Leno found a high-tech way to create exact molds within his own garage. Pairing a NextEngine 3D Scanner and a Dimension 3D Printer, he was able to scan broken parts from his cars, adjust and irregularities using CAD software, and then create an exact plastic replica of the adjusted part that is ready to be molded and produced.
Granted the combined cost of the 3D scanner and printer is more than the bluebook value of my entire car, but it’s still an impressive accomplishment to combine these two machines and put them to a new personal use.
They may not make them like they used to, but at least now we’re close to recreating them like they were meant to be.
--Justin Sutton
Friday, July 10, 2009
#
Gwen’s recent post - The "C" in "C-Level" Stands For "Critical” – touched on the necessity of having C-Level support if innovation efforts are ever to progress into the development or manufacturing stages. This got me thinking about the other side of that coin when innovation becomes a dire need for an organization to survive and is being pushed from the top-down.
Then I turned on the news this morning and heard about GM’s record-paced return from bankruptcy. Here is an example of a company that is going through an incredible culture change and will be placing a great deal of focus on innovation. For years GM has been able to successfully focus on the truck and SUV segments, but trending popularity of smaller, more efficient vehicles is a product of necessity when you consider where oil prices are heading. The “new” GM appears ready to shift into the latter category with a vengeance.
However, just because GM is dedicated to innovation from the top does not mean it will be an easy road ahead.
Culture change is something that we all know develops over time, and creating an innovative culture is something that also takes a unique mix of special people. I think that GM is up to the task considering that they have already been moving in the right direction with electric and hybrid autos, plus I have an affinity for comebacks and underdogs.
Another hurdle GM must maneuver will be speed to market with new products, business tactics, and sales channels. This is something that we’ve seen many larger companies struggle with in the past, as sheer size can make the approval procedure for new ideas into a nightmare. The company already has plans to reduce white-collar positions this year in an effort to streamline this process and instill more accountability on an individual level, which moves away from previous committee-laden processes.
So what do you think: is it more difficult for companies to innovate in a sudden top-down push or from a grassroots effort from the bottom?
--Justin Sutton