HBS Working Knowledge: Innovation: Why Innovations Sit on the Shelf This HBS WK article is pretty interesting in its assertion that a lot of companies fail to innovate due to an inability to conduct candid conversations about internal problems. It goes on to say that most traditional change initiatives to foster this kind of conversation usually fail quite early, giving instead, the offering the following 4 point-process:

1. Advocate, Inquire, Repeat - "It's the leader's job to point managers and team members in a specific direction but to make sure it's a direction they can respond to. To effect innovation, a leader must advocate, then inquire, and continue to repeat these actions as necessary"

2. Cut to the Chase - "Energizing an initiative requires that the conversations about it focus on only the most significant factors facing the organization—the company's ability to carry out the initiative and any obstacles to performance"

3. Be Open and Inclusive - "Fundamental business innovations almost always require changing the worldview and the behaviors of a whole set of interdependent players—the CEO, the senior leadership team, and managers down the line. This won't happen without a collective, public conversation."

4. Strive for honesty alongside low risk - "By encouraging honesty, then rewarding it, leaders can demonstrate to all levels of the organization that candor is valued."

All of this is a little optimstic in its real-life assessment of risk and the ability to be open in the manner they ask for - but none-the-less, some interesting ideas

Innovation Becoming Higher Priority in Global Companies The Conference Board did some sort of survey of 100 global companies which has had some interesting results:

- 70% hold innovation in high regard

- 90% say innovation is integrated into strategic goals

- 55% (only??) have expanded their definition of innovation to include business model, strategy and process innovation.

- Although 80% of surveyed companies have central R&D units, on average, only 55% of innovation originates from inside the companies themselves

- Companies are encouraging a wider array of employees to collect information from their customers and solicit ideas from the broad employee population (nothing new there - this has been a common practice for quite a while now amongst leading innovators)

- Globality is becoming more important - 40% say that internal teams have global membership (presumeably then, overcoming problems in language difference is becoming increasingly important)

- 60% of HR people say they have a formal process for gathering ideas from employees, and the number of ideas (as well as the financial payoffs from implementation) are increasing.

- About 40% of firms now say they have someone who fills the role of a Chief Innovation Officer - although in many cases it is the head of R&D or the CTO...

BRW Magazine - "In a word" This article by Darryl Bubner comments on Australia's misguided policies that are designed to, in theory, boost innovation, but in practice, do anything but.

For example, govt. funding for textile companies to upgrade equipment id given under the guise of innovation - but seeing as this is the same equipment everyone else buys - where's the innovation? Or the "Innovation Insights" program that aims to help manufacturing companies share best practices - something that is undoubtedly a good thing - but something that is undoubtedly contrary to the principles of innovation. As the author so rightly points out - "it is adoption and adaption, not innovation".

This article inadvertently though brings up some further fundemental problems that are starting to creep into the innovation "industry": that of increasing misdirection. Every new consultant and academic wishing to make a name for himself, starts off by taking the common set of terms and definitions for innovation, and renaming them to suit themselves. In that way, we now have little i vs Big I, Incremental Innovation vs Radical Innovation, Procedural Innovation vs Disruptive Innovation, and the list goes on. The words are all essentially saying the same thing - but using different terms - and the net effect of this is to create confusion (confusion I'm sure many consultants have no trouble solving for clients for a nice fee!). InnovationNetwork's Joyce Wycoff recently started up an initiative to try and come up with a set of common definitions and models, and whilst I applaud her desire and effort to do this, the sceptic (or some would say realist) in me fears it is a doomed effort as there is no money to be made in uniformity and clarity.

What will it take to solve the solution? Send us suggestions to research@imaginatik.com - we'll print any good ones we get :)

European Business Forum - Secrets of the Shower Head Joel Kurtzman, former HBR editor, writes this funny piece that suggests that what countries with a self-confessed 'innovation problem' need is to get a little messier. His contention - that countries like Switzerland and Japan are characterised by their inability to handle conflict and disorder, are also stunted in their innovation capacity because people cannot think beyond the current order. Amusing and short - worth a read!

Give Creative Personalities a Chance Susan Solomon looks at how to deal with 'Creative types' and offers some tips on how to manage them. Full of interesting facts:

For example, The author ranked America's major cities by number of creative workers, innovation, diversity, and several other factors.

- The cities Most Favoured by creatives? San Francisco, San Diego, Austin
- Least Favoured? Norfolk, VA, Memphis, TN, and Las Vegas
The author also contends that creatives are frequently not the kind of people you'd expect but rather thinkers who "acquire their own arcane bodies of knowledge and develop their own unique ways of doing the job.". Imaginatik client Grace Perfomance Chemicals has a group affectionately called 'the crazies' who are people identified as being particularly creative that are now invited to almost every idea capture event to bring their particular brand of creativity to that event!

How to manage that talent? Keep these top tips in mind:

- Creative work takes time - giving impossible deadlines will often yield stunted work

- Creative people are their own worst critics - don't be surprised if they ask for their work back to tweak it some more

-Creative people bend the rules - and you need to allow them the leeway to do so. Enforcing a 9-5 attitude, risks getting you a 9-5 product as a result..

Interesting stuff!


Interesting stuff!

Reuters.com - Is Six Sigma no longer enough? an interesting short article that claims that whilst Six Sigma is a great tool to improve existing business - it cannot create innovation. Although many companies continue to rely on Six Sigma to ensure profitable growth, people like Michael Hammer, founder of Hammer & Co., say that its overemphasis on the bottom line will hinder any innovation efforts.

Personally though, having spoken with several Imaginatik clients who are deeply involved with Six Sigma, I can't see why this has to be an either/or. I would instead say that Six Sigma and Innovation are two major tools for improving a business - and tools that should be given an equal weighting of emphasis to ensure not just an enduring profitable business, but also to ensure a constant supply of new businesses adding to that bottom line.