8/4/2010
The following post was written by Dana Meyer at Working Knowledge®
Point: Innovation may be less about technical specs and more about emotional connections.
Story:
When we think of innovation, we often think of intelligence, brilliance, and genius. Yet two speakers at the World Innovation Forum highlighted the large and less-rational depths of the human mind. Inside us all is an inner animal that significantly influences the path of innovation.
First, Seth Godin (author of Purple Cow, Tribes and, most recently, Linchpin) referred to the “lizard brain” — the primitive beast that lurks deep inside our heads. Humans may have evolved a nice primate brain full of intelligence, rational analysis, and dispassionate logic, but when the lizard feels threatened, s/he takes over. Second, Chip Health (author of Made to Stick and, most recently, Switch) introduced Jonathan Haidt’s notion of the rider and the elephant. The rider represents the rational, logical mind of humans. The elephant represents the more primitive, lumbering forces of emotion. In essence, the elephant is just a larger metaphor for the lizard. Godin and Heath are not the first to have noticed the inner animal. Even Plato talked of the steady charioteer vs. the surging war horse when explaining the perpetual tussle we experience between our rational and emotional sides.
What does this inner animal have to do with innovation? The inner animal explains some of the patterns of failure and success of innovations. Godin spoke of the “resistance” — that overwhelming force of fear that makes the lizard react to changes as threats. Moreover, the threatened lizard actually co-opts the more rational rider into making rationalizations — all the “yes, buts” that impede innovation. This resistance gives us the inertia of the elephant and forestalls innovation.
Yet the inner animal isn’t only about resistance to change. Heath noted that people do willingly make massive changes in their lives, such as when they get married or have kids. Clearly, affairs of the heart can bypass change resistance. This gives an avenue of advancement for innovation. Robert Brunner (former director of Industrial Design at Apple) spoke of brand as being a gut feeling and of products being more that just physical objects. Innovation and design can and should connect to people’s hearts.
Certainly our world needs innovations that deliver quantitative performance improvements, such as 20% more fuel economy or 50% less cycle time. Yet it’s the innovations that deliver oodles of more fun, excitement, and inspiration that grab public consciousness. Innovation may be less about the world of PowerPoint slides, feature checklists, and action-items. Instead, innovation that overcomes change resistance and gains large market share may be much more about the world of emotional resonance, heart, and social connection.
Action:
Motivate the elephant with visceral/emotional stories and images — make change exciting and compelling rather than merely rational. Direct the rider by using the emotion of the elephant to avoid paralysis by analysis. Shape the path to make it easier for both rider and elephant (for example, Amazon’s 1-click makes purchasing efficient for the rider as well as impulsive for the elephant).
7/15/2010
The following blog post is from Innovating to Win: Observations from the front line on building the high performance innovation organization
It’s horrifying to think that it has been almost 70 days since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on April 20th and little substantive progress has been achieved in stemming the ecological disaster of Brobdingnagian proportion. Crude oil continues to spew forth from the broken underwater pipe. Gooey masses of toxic sludge wash up on our shores. The flora and fauna that comprise the fragile ecosystem are helpless as they are buried in oil.
Surely, a unique catastrophe such as this which poses challenges unlike any which have been seen before requires fresh thinking, inventive approaches, novel solutions—in a word: innovation. Yet, where is the innovation?
People are viscerally angry at the Obama administration for its handling of the crisis. Some people defend the President saying, “He really couldn’t do anything.” The problem is that Obama could do something. He could have used the power of the Office to drive the innovation climate needed to produce better outcomes.
The handling of Deepwater Horizon oil spill is an object lesson in ways to fail at driving innovation in time of need. Here are some of the key takeaways that we can learn from.
Failing to recognize the problem
In the initial days after the explosion, it was clear that this was going to be a serious situation. Yet, both BP and the Whitehouse downplayed the severity of the spill publishing estimates of the volume of oil leakage far below what the Coast Guard was estimating. No immediate action was seen from the Administration either to hasten stoppage of the leak or to mitigate the threats to the environment. In short, heads were firmly planted in the sand as no one publicly acknowledged the scope of what was happening.
Turning a blind eye to the situation and looking through rose tinted glasses are all too common in business. Consider the failure of Sony to recognize the threats mp3 technology posed to the Walkman. How many minicomputer companies vanished because they did not fully appreciate the technological and market trends of the 1980s? You must always be looking for what looms just over the horizon. As Andy Grove put it, “Only the paranoid survive.”
Not Invented Here syndrome
Over a dozen countries have offered assistance in cleaning up the spill. The Administration has turned all these offers of help away. Many individuals have stepped forward with ideas about how to stop the leak or protect the coastline. Yet, these suggestions have been ignored. This sort of intellectual arrogance abounds in the business world as well. I can’t count the number times I have heard companies described as having an NIH culture.
Companies must look at their innovation systems and understand how to integrate customers and value chain partners into their R&D processes. Open innovation is not simply about finding more ideas; it’s about extending the value creation capacity of an organization by leveraging all the resources in its innovation ecosystem.
No leadership
This is the issue that has the public riled. Throughout the crisis, Obama has not shown any leadership. Innovation requires leadership, that quality of being able to rally people to step outside of themselves and reach a goal that they would not have been able to achieve on their own. But, the administration has not chosen to take the lead. When BP was short on ideas to stop the leak, did Obama reach out to other oil companies to see if they could help or at least help understand the limits of possibility? No. Did Obama stand up against political pressure and waive the Jones Act? No. At every turn, the Administration has failed to show leadership opting instead to sit back and wait for BP to figure it out.
Lack of leadership is a leading cause for failure to establish sustainable innovation systems in companies. Many executives will say they want innovation practice to develop from the grass roots of the engineering community. The reality is that without the nourishment of executive leadership, the grass root are destined to whither in the parched and barren soil of institutional inertia. Executives must lead from the front to drive the type of cultural change required to establish innovation as a value driving core competence.
All show; no substance
Don’t we all feel better knowing the Administration is going to have a blue ribbon committee explore potential criminal malfeasance at the root of the disaster? Thank goodness BP executives have been subjected to a good tongue lashing. Huzzah, huzzah!
Right! Everyone can see through the bread and circus approach to managing the situation. The political consequences of this promise to be severe. So too, are the consequences within a company when the commitment to innovation doesn’t extend beyond words and window dressing. When it comes to a company’s innovation agenda, all employees recognize big hat, no cattle management and are highly unmotivated to pursue innovation on behalf of the company. If you really want innovation, you must act with conviction and purpose. You must invest in people and infrastructure to enable the environment for innovation success.
What innovation lessons do you see in the Gulf Oil Spill situation? 6/25/2010
By Michelle Conrad, Re-posted from Innovation Weblog
Luck, as in being in the right place at the right time, seems to be as important as smart, creative thinking when bringing new ideas to fruition. Successful innovators are sometimes described as getting more than their share of “lucky breaks” or as “born lucky.” Is it just by chance that some people seem to have all the luck, or is there a method to their good fortune?
A study by psychologist Richard Wiseman suggests that luck can be learned. Here are three strategies that he suggests will give you the Midas touch:
Seek out variety: Lucky people are more likely to take different routes to work, talk to strangers at parties and dine at a variety of unfamiliar restaurants. Extending yourself to new situations, people and places increases the sheer number of opportunities available to you.
Follow your intuition when making decisions: Listen to how you think and feel about various options rather than just following your rational mind. Gut feelings can help you recognize great opportunities and avoid unlucky mistakes.
See the positive side in challenging situations: Lucky people tend to focus attention on the sunny side, so that they stay open to ideas that might reverse unlucky situations.
It’s not by chance that these three fortune-raising tips are also effective innovation strategies. It seems that what we call luck is really a mindset of being open to and prepared for big opportunities. 11/20/2009
Author: Krista Reaves, Marketing Communications
It doesn’t matter what company you work for, or the industry you’re in, it always comes down to people. Each business is made up of people, and those people are ultimately interested in other people. Their stories, how their work fits into their life, and what their values are. You can’t trust a company without trusting the people in it.
This is why it’s so important for a company to tell a story, rather than feed customers facts and figures, hoping it will get them to connect, believe and ultimately purchase.
For example, you may be interested in knowing the facts about Comau’s SmartCell. It’s efficient, it’s lean, and it’s flexible. But, you might also be interested in who developed it, and how, and why and what kind of people are behind the product.
Using this blog, Comau will begin to share stories about our employees, who they are, what they do, and what they like. Ultimately it’s people talking to other people, and making important decisions about what to purchase and who to trust.
What else can be done to gain customer trust and loyalty? Do stories of the people behind the products seem relevant in the manufacturing industry? Have you seen the Faces of GM blog? What do you think? 10/30/2009
Author: Giandomenico Demartini, Vice President, Engineering
Some days ago I went through a tweet on the concept of “satisficing,” or in other words, what happens when a decision making process stops with the first acceptable option, without further analysis.
I gave this equation previously on the blog.
Imagine that the Roman numerals below are sticks.
XI + I = X
Leaving the plus and equals signs where they are, what is the least number of sticks you need to move to turn the equation into a correct one?
To the XI + I = X question most people get to the answer of “one” almost immediately. They jump in and start moving things around right away, seeing X + I = XI or IX + I = X as good answers, and stop at that point. But these are "satisficing" answers.
If you stop and think about the optimal answer to the question of “least number of sticks moved,” you’d realize that the answer ideally would be “zero.” But is that possible? Yes.
Look at the equation upside down for a moment, or look at it in a mirror. You don’t need to move a single stick. If you stop for a moment, think about the question a bit more deeply and look at the problem from another perspective, the elegant solution appears.
I spend a good part of my professional life coaching and facilitating teams through ideation sessions, and in each one the dreaded stall point always happens. People look at the whiteboard and see nothing but unoriginal solutions, tired ideas, and boring designs. The creative tension is palpable. If the group is less than diligent, and perhaps low on coffee, it may settle for “satisficing.”
This isn’t good. It means that people haven’t expended their best thinking, so ho-hum ideas loom large and obvious. Ho-hum ideas typically don’t lead to success.
The word “satisfice” combines “satisfy” and “suffice” that Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon coined over fifty years ago in his book Models of Man to describe the default decision-making process by which we generally accept the first option that offers an acceptable payoff and stop looking for the best way to solve the problem. While satisficing helps us make it through the day, it’s deadly when you’re trying to design a compelling solution.
How do you breathe new perspective into a problem? You need to go off-road a bit with your thinking. Of all the techniques I’ve used, a fifteen-minute diversion called non-linear thinking almost always sparks something.
Let’s say your team owns a kitchen appliance company, and the problem is marketing the new refrigerator in the Arctic.
1. Go to the dictionary, open it to any page, and pick the first noun on the page—for example: fish.
2. Now brainstorm as many characteristics, concepts, and ideas that relate to “fish.”—for example: swim, ocean, fin, frozen, catch, boat, scale, sushi, and flop.
3. Pick one or two of those associations and relate them back to your problem. Use them to spark creativity and new ways of thinking about refrigerators. This will help you get off the normal path of ideas associated with appliances—for example, the word “frozen” might spur the idea of selling refrigerators to Eskimos to prevent fish from freezing! Okay, so that’s a stretch, but you get the point.
4. Now use this technique with the real problem that you’re trying solve.
The point is to get out of the “satisficing” box and think bigger, bolder, and different. Breakthrough thinking requires you to break through creative tension. Then, by going off-road, you can get back on track.
Matthew E. May is the author of In Pursuit of Elegance: Why the Best Ideas Have Something Missing, and blog here. You can follow him on Twitter here. How do you avoid “satisficing?”
10/28/2009
Author: Giandomenico Demartini, Vice President, Engineering
Try this simple game:
Imagine that the Roman numerals below are sticks. Leaving the plus and equal signs where they are, what is the least number of sticks you need to move to turn this equation into a correct one?
XI+I=X
Leave your guesses in the comments section and stay tuned for the correct answer on Friday.
|
|
|
|
|