End of Day One....
So – more interesting stories – this time from people like Jeneanne Rae and Sirius' Mary Pat Ryan – but the same themes still – Passion the vital ingredient for innovation; ideas are nothing without execution; innovation happening at the combination of different worlds and viewpoints (a point I'm sure will be hammered in tomorrow when Frans Johansson takes the stage). Clay Rockefeller and Josh Kopell also presented interesting stories.
All the stories today have been pretty interesting – hell, innovation's an interesting topic – and many share common traits that betray the truths of working in an innovative environment and taking innovation into reality. As such, I guess this conference has been a success (and I won't waste space here going over what so many other of my fellow Corante bloggers (http://innovation.corante.com) are covering in such a great way already) – but I have to remark on what a shame that questions haven't been allowed – for one of the greatest truths of the knowledge management era (and let's face it – that's what this essentially is – an exercise in knowledge transfer through storytelling) – is that people never know the full depth of what they know until they need to use it. Allowing questions might've released some of the more hidden knowledge nuggets the innovators here had to share – something very valuable indeed....
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Lunchtime...
So the talks themselves have so far been the predicted mix between intellectually fun with the odd practical tidbit thrown in – hardly setting the innovation world on fire. So the focus instead has been on looking at the underlying themes behind the stories that people are sharing. The big one from my perspective, has been the constant mentions of the need for “passion” in the innovation that people are trying to make a reality. True, not exactly a breakthrough thought (I mean, if you're passionate about something, you're more likely to work harder to make something work and therefore the more likely you are to make something work) – but still something that is frequently forgotten/ignored in big corporates. In fact, the more I think about it – it's funny how people always say that the difference between big companies and small competitors is the small company's ability to be more “flexible”, and more “reactive” to changing demands when compared to the big lumbering machine that a big company can be. However the real issue is that people in a small company are more likely to be engaged and passionate about the business – they just work harder as a company overall because everyone is more committed to making that company's vision a reality. The trick for big companies is figuring out how to instill that entrepreneurial passion in a corporate environment that doesn't always reward it – but desperately needs it if projects are to be as successful as they should be. Enough rambling – back to the conference....
Oh if you want Larry Keely's pretty pictures:
http://clientweb.doblin.com
username BIF
password: innovation
I believe access is only good for two weeks – so go get them now.
So the talks themselves have so far been the predicted mix between intellectually fun with the odd practical tidbit thrown in – hardly setting the innovation world on fire. So the focus instead has been on looking at the underlying themes behind the stories that people are sharing. The big one from my perspective, has been the constant mentions of the need for “passion” in the innovation that people are trying to make a reality. True, not exactly a breakthrough thought (I mean, if you're passionate about something, you're more likely to work harder to make something work and therefore the more likely you are to make something work) – but still something that is frequently forgotten/ignored in big corporates. In fact, the more I think about it – it's funny how people always say that the difference between big companies and small competitors is the small company's ability to be more “flexible”, and more “reactive” to changing demands when compared to the big lumbering machine that a big company can be. However the real issue is that people in a small company are more likely to be engaged and passionate about the business – they just work harder as a company overall because everyone is more committed to making that company's vision a reality. The trick for big companies is figuring out how to instill that entrepreneurial passion in a corporate environment that doesn't always reward it – but desperately needs it if projects are to be as successful as they should be. Enough rambling – back to the conference....
Oh if you want Larry Keely's pretty pictures:
http://clientweb.doblin.com
username BIF
password: innovation
I believe access is only good for two weeks – so go get them now.
BIF – Day One
Morning...
So am at BIF today – an innovation conference run by a local no-profit organization in Rhode Island with a bit of a twist: Rather than focusing on “gurus” regurgitating books and practitioners giving case studies, instead this conference focuses on the personal stories around innovation – presumably leading to a Steven Demming approved notion that the stories will aid the absorption of the lessons behind the stories. But does a day (or two if you stay for both days) of listening to innovators talk about their personal experiences really end up giving you something new and practical to take home to your company to use – or will it just be fodder for intellectual amusement. Realistically I'm hoping a mixture of both – but nevertheless, this intrigued me enough to make the 1 ½ hour commute, battling rush hour on both ends, from Boston to Providence to see the results. I'll try and post the odd blog entry over the time I'll be here which will also be the first time I think we've actually posted directly from a conference on a conference (I've posted from conferences tons of times in the past – but usually because I find my own intellectual creativity stimulated in the lulls created by duller speakers ;) ) - So let's see what happens...
Morning...
So am at BIF today – an innovation conference run by a local no-profit organization in Rhode Island with a bit of a twist: Rather than focusing on “gurus” regurgitating books and practitioners giving case studies, instead this conference focuses on the personal stories around innovation – presumably leading to a Steven Demming approved notion that the stories will aid the absorption of the lessons behind the stories. But does a day (or two if you stay for both days) of listening to innovators talk about their personal experiences really end up giving you something new and practical to take home to your company to use – or will it just be fodder for intellectual amusement. Realistically I'm hoping a mixture of both – but nevertheless, this intrigued me enough to make the 1 ½ hour commute, battling rush hour on both ends, from Boston to Providence to see the results. I'll try and post the odd blog entry over the time I'll be here which will also be the first time I think we've actually posted directly from a conference on a conference (I've posted from conferences tons of times in the past – but usually because I find my own intellectual creativity stimulated in the lulls created by duller speakers ;) ) - So let's see what happens...
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Thought you'd be interested in the new report from Deloitte called the "Glittering Prize:
How financial institutions can drive growth through process and service innovation."
The comment by HSBC's Chairman "Product innovation gives less than three months competitive advantage. Process innovation gives at least 12 months competitive advantage" reminds me of the innovation challenges our financial services clients face and how they use Imaginatik's innovation infrastructure to turn consumer insights into service and process innovations, that are difficult for competitors to copy.
A major recommendation from the report that we've enabled our financial services clients to excel at is "Aligning infrastructure. Innovative companies often have dedicated systems and tools to support the innovation process. Their performance measures and incentive structures align with the organization’s overall innovation goals – rewarding employees for figuring out how to do things better. They also use knowledge networks, enterprise portals and other technology tools to promote collaboration and information-sharing – a critical first step on the road to innovation."
The outcome is an effective innovation process that produces a "steady stream of sustaining and breakthrough ideas: new products; new services; new processes; new business models — innovations that enable a company to create and capture value in entirely new ways, ultimately leading to continuous revenue growth."
How financial institutions can drive growth through process and service innovation."
The comment by HSBC's Chairman "Product innovation gives less than three months competitive advantage. Process innovation gives at least 12 months competitive advantage" reminds me of the innovation challenges our financial services clients face and how they use Imaginatik's innovation infrastructure to turn consumer insights into service and process innovations, that are difficult for competitors to copy.
A major recommendation from the report that we've enabled our financial services clients to excel at is "Aligning infrastructure. Innovative companies often have dedicated systems and tools to support the innovation process. Their performance measures and incentive structures align with the organization’s overall innovation goals – rewarding employees for figuring out how to do things better. They also use knowledge networks, enterprise portals and other technology tools to promote collaboration and information-sharing – a critical first step on the road to innovation."
The outcome is an effective innovation process that produces a "steady stream of sustaining and breakthrough ideas: new products; new services; new processes; new business models — innovations that enable a company to create and capture value in entirely new ways, ultimately leading to continuous revenue growth."
Monday, September 18, 2006
Kimberly-Clark turns to outsiders on R&D
As more companies enter the Innovation Arms race, those with maturing Innovation Infrastructures are looking to increase their innovation capabilities. One such way that has been getting a lot of press recently has seen the promotion of open innovation with the likes of P&G, Kraft Foods and now Kimberly Clark openly reporting their capabilities.
This change has seen Kimberly Clark look outside its Research & Development (R&D) department for innovation by doing away with their vertically integrated model of product development with remarkable results. For example, by turning in part to people outside their organization, Kimberly Clark has managed to slash the time to bring new products to market by 30 percent.
One of the key reasons for the switch in strategy was due to the demand on the product pipeline that Kimberly-Clark’s senior vice president and Chief Innovation Officer (CIO), Cheryl Perkins, adopted three years ago when she began leading the company’s R&D operations. Like many companies, the demand for continual growth is leading to an increase in the Innovation Revenue Growth Gap, between known and unknown innovations, as companies struggle to find new sources for innovative ideas. Kimberly-Clark has overcome this by changing their focus and engaging with outside parties in the development and launch of products. Last year alone, Kimberly-Clark formed more than 30 partnerships. This has created some remarkable results, including; Huggies liquid baby powder, Huggies Cleanteam that hit the market shelves in 12 months instead of the typical 2-3 years and SunSignals, which have increased the sales of the Huggies swim pants whilst reaching a wider audience.
Crucially, Kimberly-Clark has not forgotten the importance of people in the process. They have assigned relationship managers for each of the partnerships and from a very early stage they agreed on who owns the intellectual property, before unresolved issues get a chance to erupt acrimoniously. Furthermore, whilst product and technology innovations have been the main focus, Kimberly-Clark have also looked at other Innovation Dimensions, including design. This has resulted in Kimberly-Clark planning to open a design studio in early September 2006. Such focus has created a more advanced, disciplined and successful innovation process. This is a great read. Open innovation is on the march….
As more companies enter the Innovation Arms race, those with maturing Innovation Infrastructures are looking to increase their innovation capabilities. One such way that has been getting a lot of press recently has seen the promotion of open innovation with the likes of P&G, Kraft Foods and now Kimberly Clark openly reporting their capabilities.
This change has seen Kimberly Clark look outside its Research & Development (R&D) department for innovation by doing away with their vertically integrated model of product development with remarkable results. For example, by turning in part to people outside their organization, Kimberly Clark has managed to slash the time to bring new products to market by 30 percent.
One of the key reasons for the switch in strategy was due to the demand on the product pipeline that Kimberly-Clark’s senior vice president and Chief Innovation Officer (CIO), Cheryl Perkins, adopted three years ago when she began leading the company’s R&D operations. Like many companies, the demand for continual growth is leading to an increase in the Innovation Revenue Growth Gap, between known and unknown innovations, as companies struggle to find new sources for innovative ideas. Kimberly-Clark has overcome this by changing their focus and engaging with outside parties in the development and launch of products. Last year alone, Kimberly-Clark formed more than 30 partnerships. This has created some remarkable results, including; Huggies liquid baby powder, Huggies Cleanteam that hit the market shelves in 12 months instead of the typical 2-3 years and SunSignals, which have increased the sales of the Huggies swim pants whilst reaching a wider audience.
Crucially, Kimberly-Clark has not forgotten the importance of people in the process. They have assigned relationship managers for each of the partnerships and from a very early stage they agreed on who owns the intellectual property, before unresolved issues get a chance to erupt acrimoniously. Furthermore, whilst product and technology innovations have been the main focus, Kimberly-Clark have also looked at other Innovation Dimensions, including design. This has resulted in Kimberly-Clark planning to open a design studio in early September 2006. Such focus has created a more advanced, disciplined and successful innovation process. This is a great read. Open innovation is on the march….
Five Key Strategies for Making Metrics
One of the key things for any business serious about innovation is how to measure it, what metrics to use and where/when to use them appropriately. These of course need to be tied back some financial measure; such as the Innovation Revenue Growth Gap with key metrics and targets agreed with management at all levels of the organization. Without these being pre-defined what are organizations really aiming at? Committed targets for metrics are critical to driving innovation; having metrics will not drive it.
There are some nice points made in this article.
Firstly, rewarding innovative behaviors as people correspond to the metrics that you measure them against is key. If people aren’t rewarded and recognized, why should they participate? Also companies need to have meaningful/representative ways to evaluate ideas i.e. appropriate metrics for measuring new products, services and business models.
I find ‘connecting the metric to the rhetoric’ a facilitating point. If an employee is solely measured on the day-to-day performance, such as a call centre worker, or year-to-year performance targets such as a salesman without any tie to longer-term innovation goals - they are clearly not aligned with a company’s innovation strategy or the company with them. This is a very short sighted approach. Innovation should not be evaluated solely within such time limits as there effects, if given the appropriate time, can bring great rewards.
Having metrics that supports or can support all types of innovative ideas is critical. Otherwise great ideas maybe lost or cast aside as they don’t meet the criteria or have a process them forward appropriately if/once identified. This is not just about metrics that people can use to evaluate ideas but about the people who assess ideas themselves and their ability to reform the process to allow a great idea to be properly evaluated rather than dismissed out of hand for failing the current criteria.
Likewise having different measures for incremental and breakthrough innovation is key, as they need to be treated differently, not only in how they are measured but how they are developed. Breakthroughs can be hard to measure with precision, as a company may not have anything to compare with previous experiences on its performance. Although this can be grown as a company matures in producing breakthrough innovations.
Innovation process metrics are lead indicators of innovation success. Without them, how do you know you have arrived? How do you know if the process is working, how it can be imporved or what value it is returning for your investment?
One of the key things for any business serious about innovation is how to measure it, what metrics to use and where/when to use them appropriately. These of course need to be tied back some financial measure; such as the Innovation Revenue Growth Gap with key metrics and targets agreed with management at all levels of the organization. Without these being pre-defined what are organizations really aiming at? Committed targets for metrics are critical to driving innovation; having metrics will not drive it.
There are some nice points made in this article.
Firstly, rewarding innovative behaviors as people correspond to the metrics that you measure them against is key. If people aren’t rewarded and recognized, why should they participate? Also companies need to have meaningful/representative ways to evaluate ideas i.e. appropriate metrics for measuring new products, services and business models.
I find ‘connecting the metric to the rhetoric’ a facilitating point. If an employee is solely measured on the day-to-day performance, such as a call centre worker, or year-to-year performance targets such as a salesman without any tie to longer-term innovation goals - they are clearly not aligned with a company’s innovation strategy or the company with them. This is a very short sighted approach. Innovation should not be evaluated solely within such time limits as there effects, if given the appropriate time, can bring great rewards.
Having metrics that supports or can support all types of innovative ideas is critical. Otherwise great ideas maybe lost or cast aside as they don’t meet the criteria or have a process them forward appropriately if/once identified. This is not just about metrics that people can use to evaluate ideas but about the people who assess ideas themselves and their ability to reform the process to allow a great idea to be properly evaluated rather than dismissed out of hand for failing the current criteria.
Likewise having different measures for incremental and breakthrough innovation is key, as they need to be treated differently, not only in how they are measured but how they are developed. Breakthroughs can be hard to measure with precision, as a company may not have anything to compare with previous experiences on its performance. Although this can be grown as a company matures in producing breakthrough innovations.
Innovation process metrics are lead indicators of innovation success. Without them, how do you know you have arrived? How do you know if the process is working, how it can be imporved or what value it is returning for your investment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)