Comments

I think you have hit the nail on the head. A lot of talk in this area is around increasing creativity in the culture.

In my experience there is no lack of creativity in the work place (well ideas anyway) the problem is the second half which often boils down to simple execution of the ideas.(simple but not easy. we hear that word execution cropping up a lot on this board!)

I think part of this is also teamwork. Often the ideas person is not the best person to implement. Often the worst thing you can do to an ideas person is to say "ok do it". Often the best thing is "OK work with Bob - he will help you make that happen"

We really have to get away from this concept that the modern worker has to be brilliant at everything (hard driven but sensitive, task focussed but visionary) and move to how you get different types to mesh together and respect the work and strengths of the other.

Paul

Posted by PaulH at January 31, 2008 10:30 AM

What concerns me here is that "Innovation" is becoming just another trend. It is to today what TQM, JIT, 6 sigma, silo-busting and a whole host of other initiatives have been to yesterday: terrific management tools when applied by a minority of business who use them to fulfil meaningful business objectives (and then move on) but less than successful elsewhere. How long before we see a CEO announce disappointing results with the comment: "But we have an Innovation Initiative that it expected to deliver £75 squillion in savings and double that in new opportunities etc etc."

It also concerns me to the extent that we're re-inventing the wheel. "Innovation?" Isn't it really just a common-sense application of sound management basics? Having a quick and imaginative R&D pipeline? Keeping an open mind to new business opportunities? Constantly challenging the way we do things around here? Being prepared to change? Listening to people doing front line and backroom jobs to get their take on potential improvements?

There's almost a contradiction in terms between "innovative companies" (i.e. they have the good sense to employ people who just do this stuff anyway) and companies that have to define and proceduralise innovation. You wonder about the latter and whether it's just another initiative...

Posted by Mark JF at January 31, 2008 11:01 AM

One of the areas of organizational design that influences innovation is that of the role of product management. Is it aligned with (i.e., reports into) engineering, is it a marketing function only (e.g. may write an MRD for the initial design, but primarily focused outward), or is it the hybrid model, where the PM is responsible for leading/driving a cross-functional team. In the latter model th PM has to be a consumate project leader and team builder, but not be brilliant at all functions (e.g., she looks to a Marcom professional for those type of activities, rather than be responsible for it herself.

Posted by gregggallagher at January 31, 2008 11:03 AM

This really resonates, but do companies really have a current architecture?

Methinks they are working on sketches made on napkins and tableclothes, like the famous Mrs Winchester.

Posted by Ronald at January 31, 2008 11:03 AM

I agree with you as well.

Unfortunately, many talk innovation / change but do not understand what they are saying. They want the improvements but they do not want to change anything - except maybe the org chart. Real change looks at the way we are doing business - no mastering it. Then, we can ask how can we do this so that the client excited. But this often means traditional centers of power will lose out (they got powerful because of the old system). Change will only occur where there is enlightenment or when a disaster looms.

Posted by Steve at January 31, 2008 11:07 AM

"It may even be counterproductive to preach innovation and fire up the troops if they run smack into barriers that discourage it. Cynicism often occurs, followed by disengagement of talent when they wonder why they should bother."

Great insight - this is dead on in my experience.

If you think about innovation depending on support at the organizational level, the individual level, and at the operational / process level, you really can't be successful in changing one unless you begin to change them all.

Posted by Adam at January 31, 2008 11:55 AM

I am currently seeing a lot of talk about innovation, but a failure to embrace an outlook that supports it. As a result the "lone wolf who somehow beat the existing system" is the only source of innovation I am seeing. WAY TOO TRADITIONAL is whipping LET'S BE UNIQUE by a large margin in my neck of the woods.

Posted by Brandon at January 31, 2008 12:15 PM

I think there is a significant difference between the Innovation 'trend' and those other trends, like six sigma, that Mark JF mentions. All of the earlier examples are about getting more efficient at doing what we do now. And for their time in history, that was highly appropriate.

But today's massively competitive world of work demands that high wage earners do what Tom calls 'Work that Matters'. Work that uses all of their capabilities, and stretches them for the better. So, perhaps innovation is too narrow a definition, but for me it is symptomatic of the general challenge we all face of being net value adders through our work.

I am sure this pressure to perform is what stokes up the Innovation 'talk' that several people mention. Managers and leaders can see the need to shift performance, but seem to overlook the fact that innovation is almost impossible to pull off in our silos and bureaucracies.

There is no doubt that this debate highlights the fact we are in the midst of a massive sea change in organisation logic. The entrepreneurial start-ups of recent years give us many clues about what the world of work will increasingly look like. Maybe it's impossible for many established organisations to make the shift needed? Certainly without changing some of the fundamenatals of their work context that looks very unlikely.

Posted by Madeleine at January 31, 2008 1:53 PM

Madeleine - "... in the midst of a massive sea change in organisation logic..." I don't see it as much different to other initiatives. Maybe calling it a fad is a bit harsh; let's call it The Big Idea Du Jour! And if it helps some companies unlock latent potential in their people, good luck to them.

To be frank, most of us need a new idea / kick in the pants every so often just to stop us getting too far into a rut. I suspect that in the overall scheme of things, "Innovation" will do terrific stuff for a few companies that are able to address the mind-set issues and really run with it. It'll give a little impetus to others, maybe enough until the next Big Idea du Jour comes along. And a lot of folks will play with it, maybe getting something from it, maybe not.

I'll wager you 50 of my English pennies that by the end of 2010, there are more companies still embracing TQM and Continuous Improvement than there are with meaningful "Innovation" systems.

Posted by Mark JF at January 31, 2008 2:17 PM

Madeleine and Mark,
You both make great points about the inability of most current bureaucracies to get out of their own way long enough to do any real and meaningful innovation. Since the vast majority of companies are still built on a business model that's been around for a century or more, I think it's going to be almost impossible for most of them to ever become truly innovative in a way that will satisfy their investors or stakeholders. Promises will be made, but the CEO revolving door will continue until they stop trying to promise what their organizations are inherently unable to deliver.

Maybe the answer is right there in Mike's post when he talks about the stories of the "lone wolf" fighting against the odds. If you look throughout history, it seems that most of the great innovators were either slightly eccentric lone wolfs (Newton, Watt, Tesla, AG Bell) or were relatively small organizations led by slightly eccentric lone wolfs (Edison, Apple, 3M in its hay day). Maybe one of the answers to the Innovation conundrum is for companies and organizations to embrace the lone wolfs (similar to what IBM Research does) and keep the bureaucracy out of their way until they have something that can then be implemented by a small team of creative people.

The other thing that gets to me is that most organizations today seem to designate who the "innovators" are in the organization. They anoint them as the "brains" and generally refuse to let anyone from outside that department/organization into the clique even if they have a good idea. It's like the company is saying to it's employees "we have 10,000 of you, but only the ones in R&D really count when it comes to innovation."

Oh, and Mark, I wouldn't take that bet. I think that by 2010 there will still be a significantly higher proportion of companies embracing the "metrics" based systems over anything in the way of meaningful innovation systems.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at January 31, 2008 2:50 PM

One person’s ‘innovation’ is another person’s common sense. In the UK National Health Service, one ‘innovative’ practice currently getting rave reviews concerns progress on getting earlier appointments with family doctors. The ground breaking new ‘innovative’ approach adopted is to review current appointment systems and measure ‘take up’ against ‘predicted demand’ for a few weeks. Once that has been done a more appropriate and efficient appointment system is introduced that sees less wastage of doctor time; greater throughput of patients; quicker appointments for patients; greater satisfaction for both staff and patients and the list goes on. The PDSA (Plan Do Study Act) system underpins implementation of these ‘innovative’ ideas. PDSA is not a 21st century ‘innovative’ approach – it was developed over 70 years ago by Walter Shewhart.

I am very cynical about text book or business school classroom theory about how to innovate – it just ain’t like that. ‘Innovation’ is a mindset thing and all that’s needed is front line staff being given ‘permission’ to tell managers how to improve efficiency. Whilst Academics continue to naval gaze and turn innovation into a science the smart managers are gaining a march on competitors by just freeing up front line employees who meet customers all day every day so that they can do the stuff we then call ‘innovation.’

Phew … I feel better.

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 31, 2008 3:01 PM

The concept of ‘letting go’ of power by managers to their front liners was illustrated vividly and profoundly by two great quotes during a Christian event I attended today.

The two guys mentioned below were obviously management consultants way ahead of their time – Hippo 1500 years ago and Anselm almost one thousand years ago. It seems Tom P was in fact the third management Guru and not the first :- )

The context of their words is about faith and belief in God and I contend these quotes can/should be applied in any management setting today.

“Credo ut intelligam – translation; I believe in order to understand.” - St Augustine of Hippo: (354-430 AD)

“I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand” - Anselm (1033-1109)

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 31, 2008 5:02 PM

Most organizations don't seem to understand the difference between creativity (coming up with good ideas) and innovation (modifying and combining ideas to change something for the better). Creativity is something humans do naturally. If your employees are not sharing their good ideas with you, it's because you've convinced them it's either stupid or a bad idea to do so.

Posted by Wally Bock at January 31, 2008 7:49 PM

Adam’s comment about the necessity of support on the organizational, individual, and the operational/process levels rings incredibly true, especially if the company’s been around a while. Many of these companies, by the way, are laudable in many respects. I’m not sure if I buy the notion that there will be a whole brand new world of companies, entirely. Things undoubtedly need to change. But how many of us have run multi-national companies the like of GE and others? Or, would like to? Probably not. But we can make a positive impact upon them and so many others.

I understand the comment made about the distinction of innovative companies and those who apply innovative procedures. There seems to be bad faith in the distinction. But I do believe that most companies, new and old, would be most pleased with positive change that increases revenue, the byproduct of innovation.

Where a company lacks architecture, let’s offer it in ways THEY can receive it, even if the process is incremental. (Often times we go in expecting immediate change with OUR idea and not listen to theirs.) I love the idea of “Work that Matters.” This has been my internal mantra for many years in my various disciplines, now I have words for it. Thanks TP and the TP Company.

Regarding a comment, about companies and their lack of structure, I have some concern. There seems to be a lack of respect for the client. Let’s not do this. Most are probably trying (or engulfed in fear), even if structure is written “on napkins and tablecloths.” But belittling the client will never work.

The "napkin or tablecloth" statement seems like an elitist one, one that doesn’t sit terribly well with me. If there was not a need for change, companies wouldn’t need PSFs. The statement sounds like it comes from one who does not wish to be a part of a PSF, who does not value the client. (I hope I’m wrong. Am I?) Disparaging ideas about the client will without doubt bleed over in how we do what we do, even if we're presenting a great structure.

I love Madeleine’s point about precursors (more or less) that has lead to our current systems. (Nothing is achieved in a vacuum.) I tend not to disparage past systems, but work to move beyond them both internally and externally when necessary, and flatly reject others. But there are often remnants, even if in the culture alone. Remnants may not be all bad.

There is no better place than to be in “a massive sea change” or right in the eye of the storm when one has creative solutions for the client’s dilemma. Clients know that they have problems MORE than we do. Let’s respect and honor clients by leading them in ways that will bring creative innovative “organizational, individual, and operational/process” solutions.

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 31, 2008 8:09 PM

The single most critical element needed continuously improve performance, productivity and results in any level of any organization is the very attribute that management lacks most.....integrity. Integrity builds credibility. Credibility builds trust. Trust builds teamwork and collaboration. Teamwork and collaboration build partnerships. Partnerships, particularly cross functional ones, build synergy and are definitely a performance and productivity multiplier. I looked at the study and found it ironic that Trend 3 "Virtual Leadership" says 70% of the 129 folks surveyed felt communications was the most important yet "Honest Communication" (2%)and "Integrity/Credibility" (2%) were at the bottom of the list. You can't mandate innovation and culture change. It's earned. The mechanisms that can be used to collect said feedback are simple. Go back to the Top 50 list Tom posted several weeks ago and begin the process of frequently and consistently doing a few things on it....like asking for input and feedback several levels down.....or even with your own team. The higher you are in the organization, go a little deeper. It takes time. But you will be amazed at how productive things can become when your mouth says one thing and your policies, processes and personal actions don't contradict you. Why is it so difficult for managers to do what leaders do as second nature...ask everyone "What Do You Think"? then act on the feedback. I have it narrowed down to two potential reasons. One is ego, the other is fear. I'm with Trevor, one person's innovation is another person's common sense. Now if we could just figure out why common sense can't be tolerated in most organization's we would definitely be on to something.

Posted by Dave Wheeler at January 31, 2008 10:26 PM

Is the problem actually inside the organisations?

Most public companies are forced to work to short time periods (Qtr) by the short term results oriented markets. Now there is a great deal of good that comes out of that rigor in terms of drive and competitive behaviour.

On the other hand that kind of time frame means that new approaches are very hard to implement before you have to deliver next Qtrs results. Most managers prefer tried and trusted approaches (with fine tuning and a bit of gee up in the last few days) than big innovations.

Put bluntly the stakes are too high to innovate and yet in the long term you fail if you don't

Posted by PaulH at February 1, 2008 3:30 AM

A case study I have just read supports your view on innovation and architecture Mike. When Professionals Have To Lead by Delong, Gabarro and Lees, looks at leadership in contemporary Professional Service Firms. One of the case studies concerns the London based international law firm, Herbert Smith, and a recent transformation in performance of their Real Estate practice. In seven years, the practice has moved from one of the worst performing to one of the leading practices in the firm. As with all transformation stories, there must have been a multitude of concurrent forces in play, but my take is that three elements prevailed, the new senior partner, Iain Rothney's, strong ambition for the Real Estate practice, his courage to restructure his practice into a different format to the other "more successful" practices in the firm, and introducing performance measures and rewards that rewarded those lawyers who changed the way they pitched and executed projects. There was an epidemic of innovation and change within a well established law firm (not exactly famous as hotbeds of innovation!) set off by a leader setting up the right context for his lawyers, and eagerly picked up on by his talented staff.

Posted by Richard King at February 1, 2008 4:51 AM

Great story Richard.

Sounds like it was 99.99% about ‘people’ (leadership and front line lawyers) and 0.01% about 'architecture'

That - in my experience - is the percentage balance in every single innovation I've seen or been part of in my entire career.

On reflection I think I under estimated the ‘people’ percentage.

BTW - Thanks for the Hammers favour against Liverpool – Come on the Reds from the Theatre of Dreams! :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 1, 2008 5:37 AM

Interesting point Richard

Most change happens when there is a dramatic change (change in leadership is one) and that person gets enough leeway to put a vision to Snr management to make it happen

A new leader puts a new dynamic into a situation

It's unfair but true that a new manager can ask, and get things that the previous person couldn't because of history, reputation etc. Often a new leader is doing a turnaround so gets grace time to implement change - if the previous manager said " I am going to deliver nothing for a Qtr and then you will see some results" it wouldn't wash

Posted by PaulH at February 1, 2008 7:08 AM

Morning all...I will certainly agree that leadership is the essential ingredient here. But it has been my experience that often innovation fizzles out when it runs into systemic barriers. I have watched many a concept car in the auto industry not make it past the auto show because it couldn't pass through the hoops in finance, or engineering, And this is not to say there doesn't need to be checks and balances, but they need looked at if you want innovation to move beyond the lone wolf and become a cultural norm.

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 1, 2008 8:10 AM

I agree Mike. The bigger the organization, the bigger the bureaucracy and systenic barriers. Small is beautiful. All units should be run as a business unto themselves with full P&L. (what should be the maximum size? 20?)

BTW - lots of great comments. Too bad we don't all work together...)

Posted by Steve at February 1, 2008 9:57 AM

You've got a good one going here, Mike, as always. It seems to me we need a "levels shift" in our language here. Innovation needs to be an all-encompassing CAPACITY, not an element or factor. If an organization has a deep capability for innovation that must include (by definition) having the culture and systems to support it. (I think this is Gary Hamel language, to give him his props.) Developing that deep capacity/capability for innovation will separate the winners from the losers and it won't matter whether you have a Chief Innovation Officer or how many Innovation Initiatives you have on the drawing board.

Posted by John O'Leary at February 1, 2008 10:02 AM

In my experience with companies - of all sizes - they're often all for innovation (since about a bazillion of them offer "innovative" solutions) as long as it's nothing more than marketing speak and they don't have to actually change anything.

You mean we'd have to...to...to...take RISKS? You mean it takes more than paying Tom Peters to come talk to our executive strategy meeting? You mean we might have to pay attention to what our customers are saying? You mean we might have to tie exec's compensation to results? Oh, Noooooooooooo....

Scary stuff.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at February 1, 2008 10:37 AM

Brilliant Mary! - Well said. Next we will have to start trusting the people who know customers best - our front liners and that will never do now will it? ... For God sake Mary ... you realise we are suggesting anarchy here! :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 1, 2008 10:56 AM

Since I am the one with the statement that "napkins and tableclothes" constitutes inappropriate architecture, I might as well further elaborate my opinion.
Lets assume the role of a customer. How do you feel as a taxpayer when the government makes a mess of pensions or health care? How do you feel as a client of a bank that tanked via sub prime mortgage or via a rogue trader? How do you feel as a subscriber to an electric utility company that institutes rolling blackouts?
In each of these cases, I am sure that the architecture was flawed, did not exist or was never presented to the customer. Innovation is a consequence of good architecture and not luck.

Posted by Ronald at February 1, 2008 1:25 PM

Thank you, Ronald, for the elaboration. I agree with your comments posted above. For me, the explanation focuses on the issue and not the client. In particular, I was addressing how we say what we say when dealing with or talking about clients. If my assumption, I'm most happy about it. Best...

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2008 1:39 PM

'tis my point John...Great talent with mediocre systems leads to mediocre results (ok, to be fair, the great talent leaves!) Hope all is well in the great north John..hope to catch up soon, eh?

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 1, 2008 2:25 PM

Who are the folks that allow mediocre systems to exist? Frontline managers and their teams? It's management. The folks one level, four levels, many levels above me. Any leader at any level can create and institutionalize a work environment that promotes trust, teamwork, and continuous performance improvement...the culture of innovation in the area they are responsible for. The challenge becomes having to rely on those above me for the changing the processes, providing the resources, time, training et al....needed to execute. I can influence this but don't control it. How difficult is it for the leaders above me to hold those below them(my roadblocks) accountable? If I can find a "champion" several levels up above me, it can sure remove a lot of roadblocks, and make it easier for me and my team. Accountability=credibility. Words and actions match. You can't dictate it, legislate it, delegate it, purchase it, mandate it, You have to walk the talk. It's not the science of rockets....it's leadership and credibility. It is...or at least in my experience should be...a Brilliant Flash of the Obvious.

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 1, 2008 10:27 PM

In reading the interview with Professor Kanter I pulled the copy of her book " The Change Masters, ,Innovation and Entreprenuership in the American Corporation" off the shelf. You need a primer on the issue and a roadmap of execution? Try Chapter 10 "The Architecture of Culture and Strategy Change" As Professor Kanter said in the Cool Friends interview " The voice of people in organizations at all levels is what creates innovation. That's what I became known for in my book, The Change Masters. Innovation can come from anywhere in a company if you have the opportunity to voice the idea, and then are given the resources and the support to act on it." Old School ain't about age, it's about attitude. This is a leadership approach that stands any test of time....

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 2, 2008 12:25 PM

Dave- great comments. I also appreciate your comments above regarding why some managers do not lead well: ego and fear. But what can we do? Can we work within our small areas to bring about noticeable change? Can we bring about new applications to an existing thing? Or create new ones that will be recognized for its brilliance?

I love Margaret Mead’s quote about never underestimating the power of a few to change the world. "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Often times our tasks are not so monumental, though they appear to be. Maybe it’s our view. And even if it is a flawed system that lacks continuous innovation and architecture, what can we change?

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 2, 2008 1:47 PM

Judith-the answer to your "Can we work within our small areas to bring about noticeable change? Can we bring about new applications to an existing thing? Or create new ones that will be recognized for its brilliance?" questions in my experience is yes....to all of the above.

I learned this first hand as I had the pleasure to lead a 75 person team in the early 80's. The Air Force engaged the "Total Quality Management" process in the post Cold War area that was marked by large staffing and budget reductions while assuming additional operational responsibilities. We had to figure out how to do a whole lot more with a lot less people and money. As the leader I was responsible for getting this done and I literally did nothing more than to let folks know I NEEDED their input and ideas and stayed out of my office and "invaded" their work space....MBWA! They identified over 90 different suggestions that eliminated redundant and worthless activity, smarter and more productive ways to organize and consolidate tasks and work flow. We didn't use all the suggestions, but since I was involved with these folks either individually or with their teams on discussing them, they got immediate feedback on why it wouldn't work or what might need to be changed with their ideas to make them easier for "us" to sell them to the folks above us. My bosses made themselves accessible to us as well. My estimate was "we" figured out a way to save some 2800 hours per month in workload and some $800,000 per year....we actually ended up being creditted with more. This was done in relative anonimity until we had a command level Operational Readiness Inspection about 9 months later. The team assessing my team was blown away by what they saw and we became the "benchmark" of how to integrate TQM into a work center. I recall the General who did the "out brief" labeled us as the rose in the weedpatch....a phrase that didn't play well with the warrior mentality we going for to be sure. We caught the attention of those many levels up and, even though my bosses were 1000 percent supportive of what we did,it removed a lot of barriers for all of us. The down side was I ended up getting "promoted" to a trainer/consultant position to work with others on how to integrate the "basics" into their day to day operations. I enjoyed the new position, but really missed the team whose work ethic and dedication to excellence made it possible.

The best way to remove the barriers above you is show results....improve performance, and productivity. Several weeks ago Tom shared in a post about how he as an O-3 was able to accomplish things in the Pentagon that an O-3 had no business doing. Who was going to get in Tom's way when they knew the Secretary of the Navy had his back? As a leader....you don't always have to do the work. If you like what I'm doing, let all those below you know you support me. The Rose in the Weedpatch....influence through results. It can change a great deal

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 2, 2008 4:16 PM

Beautiful Dave. This story is a keeper. Thank you for role-modelling execution and results.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 2, 2008 5:19 PM

I think you've made a few very relative points. Creativity and innovation are hard to come by these days. I think the reason many employees don't push themselves is lack of incentives. Great employees come with a price. When a company provides compensation for hard work the employee will be more productive.

My blog contains many stories that talk about leadership and innovation. If you have a second you should check it out. www.cmoe.com/blog

Have a good day,

Posted by CMOE at February 4, 2008 4:38 PM