Corporate Innovation's Unexpected Ingredients

Corporate Innovation's Unexpected Ingredients

“There is no silver bullet [when it comes to radical innovation]. The truth is that there are as many methods as there are companies.” Peter Hinssen wrote that in one of posts about Day After Tomorrow Thinking . He’s right. But if you do look closely at all the pioneers Peter describes in his latest keynotes – Johnson & Johnson , British Airways, Vodafone or Alphabet among many others – patterns emerge. Clear patterns. Let’s call them the basic ingredients of innovation. I’m not talking about culture or structure – which are obviously essential to the creative process – but simply about the methodology behind some of the most radical business evolutions, responsible for new business models.

Pressurize it

I love pressure cookers. They are easy to use and ultra-fast. The pressure speeds up the preparation process, but the neatest thing is that there is NO loss in quality. On the contrary, the food is fresher and tastes better. Just like that, many innovation initiatives are accelerated in a pressure-induced manner: time and social pressure being the most popular ones. 

"Social pressure is the most overseen reason why flat organizations are so great at innovating"

Many innovation sprints have an element of time pressure to them. Obviously, I’m not talking here about constant pressure, seeing that this would drive employees insane. But I do mean well-defined and short-term deadlines that come with innovation projects. It’s what, for instance, MasterCard’s Garry Lyons uses in his ‘Innovation Express’ programs which are created to move very quickly from problem to solution. “Teams have just 48 hours to come up with an innovative but credible solution to the challenge and turn their best idea into a prototype product complete with business plan, video demonstration and go-to-market plan which they have to pitch to a select group.” What’s absolutely essential, with this type of competition though, is that you keep it fun. If the pressure feels imposed, your innovation labs – or whatever you want to call them – will go sour. There is a thin line between positive pressure and the negative kind, which is detrimental to the creativity and well-being of your workforce.

Social pressure is another type. It’s one of the most overseen reasons why meritocracies and flat organizations are so successful at keeping up with their markets and innovating. True, the employees are empowered. They do not have to ask anyone’s permission. They are free to create, experiment and try out their own ideas on a continuous basis. But the coin has two sides. Just like their decisions are their own, so are the results. If they fail, it’s on them. There’s no hiding behind the marketing manager or the CEO. So they continually have to strive to become a better version of themselves. This can be liberating, energizing and inspiring. But it’s still (a positive kind of) pressure.

Radical Innovation is a peninsula

Many radical innovation experiments like of those of MasterCard’s or the International Airlines Group have another thing in common, though: the element of distance, or isolation even. I know that many of you will frown upon this concept. We have all learned that separation and silo-creating is wrong. If you separate your people in unrelated departments, you’re in danger of atrophying. And yes, if you disconnect your company from your customer and your environment, you’ll lose touch with the market, wither and die. The method of isolation is indeed a delicate one. 

"The talent & processes needed to manage existing and emerging business tend to be so different that they constantly clash"

But applied right, it can do wonders. Because your board and your Management are only human. Radical changes tend to scare them. A lot. It’s only natural: if a group of internal innovators comes up with a platform-based business model that might cannibalize their beloved core business, a lot of sweat marks will be created on managerial shirts. You cannot blame them. Humans are risk-averse in nature, a characteristic which tends to become more prominent the ‘higher’ you climb. Because you have much more to lose. It’s psychology 101.

But that does not mean that we should give in to it. One of the most common solutions to empower and accelerate your innovation core, is to remove it structurally, geographically and decision-wise from board and Management. The existing and emerging business are separated from one another, because the talent and the processes needed to manage both are so different that they constantly clash. This allows the more radical division to really experiment. They are empowered to try things out and test them to see how they would work, without some really stressed-out people breathing down their necks. Isolation is merely protection in this case. But, just like with the pressure part, keeping a good balance is difficult. If you isolate your innovation too much, it won’t work. Just think of the beautiful accident that Xerox PARC was

Connected acceleration

Radical innovation feeds on speed. If it does not happen fast enough, it loses its value and becomes incremental again, at best. Now, what’s the one thing in our environment that keeps accelerating our industries and the level of competition? Customers, right? They are one of the fastest nodes in our networks. So it only makes sense to latch onto them and let them speed our companies up. No wonder that some of the most successful companies out there use co-creation with customers as a way to quicken their innovation efforts and make them more radical. Vodaphone, MasterCard, DHL and many others use connected ideation to keep up with their markets. I love Peter Hinssen’s example of how MasterCard collaborated with Maytag to invent Clothespin, a contactless payment app which makes it so much easier now to pay in laundromats. Co-creation is the most natural form of evolution for a company.

So yes, there is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to innovation. And it is a real challenge to keep the right balance when you apply 1 or more of these three building blocks. But I do believe that pressurization, isolation and co-creation have definitely proven their value in some of the more radical innovation projects out there.

This article first appeared in a shortened version in the Dutch publication Trends.

For more insights on our changing world, visit the nexxworks blog: https://nexxworks.com/blog





Thanks for good article. I really agree with the importance of "Isolation". Generally, it is said that people have the resistance to change when they face any kind of innovative things. Also, "Co-creation" is mandatory. Thus many companies try to connect its employees and ensure the diversification. That will accelerate the innovation and highten its quality. But I am wondering, how we can realize isolation and co-creation simultaneously? Sometimes they are contradicting.. That must be the issue for companies or organization.

Marja-Liisa Meurice Pihlstrom

Director EITFood North & East Region, Leader EITFood’s Protein Diversification Think Tank, Founder of Hyphenity

8 年

Time and experience allows to analyse processes however clients and markets do not provide the luxury of time for companies to find the best way to innovate the outstanding products and services. Existing and emerging products as you said require different talent and processes and to separate these two seem logical. I wonder however if we should at the same time learn to tolerate risk better so that the whole organization feels part of the innovation process rather than isolating it completely to some start-ups or innovation labs.

Paul Ortais

Sustainable cities planner and high-end control systems architect - I do not invite without telling why

8 年

Do you call "innovation" some progressive improvement or invention? Because they are exactly opposite. Organizations favour improvement and fight invention. The difference is, improvement can be done by teams and suit well the extremely conservative operation of a Company. True invention takes an inventor, and this one is disruptive by nature. Rare exceptions confirm a rule that, after one or two attempts at introducing "real" innovation, the inventor is beaten enough by its management go be ejected and have the competition benefit from the invention. I have seen this repetitively over decades, as regular as pinions and gears

回复
Sharminie Sirodjenie Bhoendie

Management & Administration.

8 年

Innovation is really challenging, because every person has its own approach and it should definitely be original and more effective into the market or society. I believe changing the behavior of managers in doing tasks in a way that enhances organizational performance. For example: partner interfaces, networking, people management and internal structures is equally important as innovating a product or service. Innovation is not only about the product or service, but also the regulations and laws of a country such as government policy. Radical innovation can work faster and take a product or service in the market to a higher level that improves customer’s experience of an established products or services at reduced costs and enhance the value of market share through technology. It provides unique opportunities to grow a business for social wellbeing, economic value including new customer needs and new market expectations. Some innovation requires change in government policy or regulations and this of course takes longer, because of the politic influences. Innovation creates growth, increases productivity and economic wealth whether it is radical or incremental you need that culture and environment for innovation internally as well as externally and a vision and business plan. Because it gives you a view of the future landscape of consumer wants and needs.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Laurence Van Elegem的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了