How Analytics and Data Science have impacted innovation both inside and outside of the workplace (with Dr J.R Reagan)

I recently watched a Ted Talk by this week's contributor on the subject of innovation. It was one that really piqued my interest and opened my eyes to some of the great things going on in the world with previous barriers to entry such as age, gender, race and nationality being thankfully torn down by some genuinely inspiring trailblazers who are leveraging technology to make their world and that of others, a much better place. 

I was originally motivated to watch it because I have a number of clients in Scandinavia who traditionally take a consensus approach to decision making and I have recently become interested in how this approach impacts innovation in either a positive or a negative way.

So, for the last "Analytics and Data Science Pulse," blog post of 2016, I am delighted to share the unique insights of Dr J.R Reagan. 

Dr Reagan is Vice Dean of Strategy Planning at the John E. Endicott College of International Studies (Woosong University) in Daejeon, South Korea. He establishes the vision, mission, development strategy as well as establishing reciprocal global campuses with partner universities and developing alliance programs with global companies and institutions.

Dr Reagan holds a Doctorate in Organizational Leadership from Shenandoah University, a Masters in Management Information Systems from Bowie State University and a BA in Sociology from The University of the State of New York. 

Richard: "What impact do you feel that Analytics and Data Science have had on innovation in general?"

Dr Reagan: "The invention of the printing press in 1450 ushered in a new era in western civilization known as the Renaissance, with advances in medicine, science, math, technology and other fields that transformed the way people lived and worked. Now, open data promises to do the same for our generation. With governments in the US, UK, and Canada leading the way, free, publicly accessible data is quickly becoming the norm around the globe. Open data informs us about everything from human health to corporate finance to the environment, all of it useful for not only our own understanding of ourselves and the world we live in but also as a source of innovation and commoditization for business. From weather apps to maps to uses not yet imagined, open data promises to open new vistas, expand our horizons, and stimulate innovation as never before. With the private sector sharing more of its own data, as well, we now find ourselves on the cusp of a new Renaissance, limited only by our imaginations — with data analytics playing a crucial, and ever-increasing, role.

Already, we can see the transformation taking place. Open data — that is, data that is publicly available for all to use — helps us navigate streets in a strange city, whereas before, we had to search through the glovebox for a map, or — horror of horrors — stop and ask someone for directions. Open data makes it possible for us to know what the weather will be like today, tomorrow, next week, and even in the next hour, whereas before, we had to catch the climatologist’s report on the evening news, or on the radio. Open data makes it possible for firefighters to know whether the building they’re about to enter is sound, whereas before, they had to take their chances, sometimes with tragic results. Open data allows us to predict and trace illnesses and epidemics; to be informed in real time when the bus we’re taking will be late, and what time it will arrive; to avoid traffic jams by routing us around them. And all this is only the beginning.

Clearly, we’re on the cusp of something big — a revolutionary change that promises to transform every aspect of life: how we work; how we play, and how we live, and how well. Open data could open the door to such rapid progress in medicine, technology, science, mathematics, even the arts, that future generations will know our era not only as the Age of Information but also as a Second Renaissance. What we do from here is up to us. The possibilities are limited only by our desires and our imaginations."

Richard: "What are you particularly excited about regarding the effect that Analytics and Data Science can have in the future? Any particular industries or social issues that you see imminent breakthrough’s happening?"

Dr Reagan: "Although the human population increases about 1 percent each year, the quantity of information we produce reportedly doubles every 18 months. In 2011, according to one report, humans had generated 1.8 trillion gigabytes — enough to fill so many 32 GB tablets that, stacked, they would build a wall twice as tall as the Great Wall of China. By 2020, the amount of data worldwide could exceed 40 trillion GB. 

One reason for this exponential growth: mobile phones. More than half the global population owns at least one cell phone, reports the social media agency "We Are Social." We don’t stop at just one: There are more mobile-service accounts than people in the world.

Wearables including watches, bracelets and clothing, add to the information stream, as do devices including our cars and home appliances, making us all destined, it seems, to become human data factories. 

What does all this data reveal about us? Nearly everything.

Online, our every keystroke adds another byte to the data pool, revealing our desires and quandaries, our values and opinions, our acquisitions and hobbies, our tastes in music, our favorite sports teams, our viewing and reading habits.

Apps and other tools report how much we sleep at night and how well, how many steps we take in a day, what we eat and drink — and how much, how intelligent we are, how much we travel and where we go, how much energy we consume, how much CO2 our activities generate, how much money we have and how we use it, and much more.

Orwellian though it may sound, all this information offers vast potential to improve and even extend our lives.

Already we are reaping the benefits. The “quantified self,” movement, with its focus on individual monitoring and analysis, includes members whose data has helped them to lose weight, drink less alcohol, drink more water, save money, work more efficiently, manage their time better, become more physically fit, read faster, improve their memories, meet personal goals, manage chronic illnesses, improve their physical environment — and the list goes on.

The more we know about ourselves, the more we want to know.

Innovations in “consciousness hacking,” including brain tracking and augmentation — new frontiers in self-improvement — aim to monitor and direct our moods as well as to improve cognition.

Nanoparticles ingested in pills may someday provide an in-depth look at health, detecting very early such conditions as cancer, artery blockages and nascent diabetes. 

Increasingly popular DNA tests can delve even more deeply, showing us our inherited tendencies and helping medical professionals to tailor treatments to match our individual makeup.

Data’s potential extends far beyond enriching and prolonging individual lives, however. Shared freely — and, if desired, anonymously — “open source” data can provide us with big-picture scenarios that, properly analyzed, may benefit entire communities, or even the world. Why is autism on the rise? How will changing climates affect food production? What innovations would best help my city, state, region or nation?

“The unexamined life is not worth living,” Socrates said some 2,400 years ago. How, then, might the data we generate, and its subsequent analysis, add value and meaning to our lives today and tomorrow? With an unprecedented trove of knowledge at our behest, we become as omniscient as the philosopher’s gods, able to foresee a future in which anything is possible.

Richard: "How would you recommend that people (applicants) identify potentially innovative employers? What research should they be doing and what questions should they be asking beforehand and at interview stage?"

Dr Reagan: "Who’s the “idea person” in your workplace? Most offices have at least one outside-the-box thinker – “what box?” they might even ask – known for unique, often clever, sometimes off-the-wall suggestions. Chances are, this person doesn’t get upset when others resist their pitch, or even when their idea fails because they know more ideas are on the way. 

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the naysayer loves to say “no.” This person seems more interested in blocking change than in solving problems, preferring to talk about why new ideas won’t work rather than how to help them succeed. Needless to say, this kind of person rarely suggests any ideas of their own. 

Most of us tend to fall somewhere in between these two types. But as the Age of Technology foments change at an unprecedented pace, employers and government agencies are realizing the need for innovation at every level, from the ground floor to the C-suite. Keeping up isn’t good enough, not anymore: today, we must forge ahead or risk being left behind—and that goes not just for businesses, but also for individuals.

Mindset is one reason why people resist new ideas. The way we see the world and ourselves make all the difference between greatness and mediocrity. Between charging ahead to change the world and lagging behind, opting for the comfortable and familiar.

Those of us with “fixed,” mindsets believe we’re born with a given amount of intelligence and ability. The hand we’re dealt is the hand we must play for the rest of our lives. Without special talents, why work hard to learn to play a musical instrument, win a marathon, or change a company’s culture?

People with the “fixed,” mindset can feel driven to prove that they’re smart enough, or capable enough. Often, they’re really trying to reassure themselves.

Thinking you can only get so much of anything tends to create a “scarcity mentality,” an anxiety that author Steven R. Covey noted in his book, “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.” Since people with fixed mindsets think their intelligence and abilities cannot increase, according to Dweck, they feel this anxiety, and, with it, insecurity. “What if a co-worker or employee is smarter or more talented than I am? If others notice, I’m doomed.” Many organizations and worthwhile projects have been sacrificed on the altar of fixed thinking. Finding out how any organization “thinks,” is a great indicator of a potentially innovative workplace.

Richard: "What advice would you have for Analytics Professionals and Data Scientists who want their companies to be more innovative but face resistance internally? How would you recommend that they go about impacting change from within?"

Dr Reagan: "Working for a large organization has its benefits—a shared reputation, a level of job security, plus resources and institutional knowledge to draw from—but it may discourage individual employees from taking an entrepreneurial approach to their work. Assuming that the primary goal is to fulfil the duties of their job to the best of their ability, associates and managers may not feel motivated to innovate, take risks, or think of new ways to create value. 

In addition to the lack of incentive to try something new and untested, some organizations already have teams of dedicated innovators tasked with improving systems or products and coming up with fresh ideas. So why would an employee already outside of the innovation domain suddenly decide to step inside?

Intrepreneurs typically engage in a healthy amount of risk taking, thinking outside the box, and being comfortable with uncertainty. It’s essentially like working for a start-up or launching a new business. Taking the initiative to think of how to do the job better is a resourceful and bottom-up approach that can help a brand develop a new product, establish itself in an untapped market, or simply improve upon existing systems.

For all the same reasons that working within a large organization can be advantageous to the individual—security, resources, shared risk—acting as an intrapreneur can reap great rewards. One can take advantage of infrastructure and existing assets to conceive and test new ideas. And such a proactive approach can lend an employee the reputation for being a team player, or—even better—help establish that person as a leader for pursuing solutions and problem solving without being asked to do so."

Richard: "What can companies do to stimulate and encourage their employees to be more innovative? Do you happen to have any particular examples which you would be able to share please?"

Dr Reagan: "A different mindset prevails among the most innovative thinkers. Those with a “growth mindset,” think innate intelligence and talent are only the beginning. Under this mindset, we can do almost anything well as long as we’re willing to work hard at it. Remember the children’s story “The Little Engine That Could?” “I think I can,” is the growth-mindset mantra. We can learn; we can achieve; we can innovate. If our idea doesn’t work, we try something else. Rather than see ourselves as a failure, we know we’re a work in progress.

Growth-minded people may want to succeed as much as fixed-mindset people do, but they define success differently. To them, success means learning—even if they make mistakes along the way. Therefore, they’re not only more open to risk-taking, but they’re also more receptive to others’ ideas.

“If you don’t like something, change it,” the author Maya Angelou said. “If you can’t change it, change your attitude.”

People with a growth mindset don’t think about how intelligent they are, but about how smart they can become. Success, to them, means learning and improving. And to growth-minded managers, it means guiding employees, not judging them."

Richard: "What questions and checks should the C-Suite be asking and have in place respectively to ensure that they are implementing innovation that is commercially viable and not being innovative for the sake of it?"

Dr Reagan: "Are two heads really better than one? In the workplace, the answer appears to be “yes” – especially if those two heads don’t agree.

Perspectives matter – the more of them, the better for business. Many organizations have figured this out, and are embracing worker diversity as the way to bring different viewpoints to the table. In a study of companies earning $500 million a year or more, 85 percent said diversity is crucial for workplace innovation – but in the quest to include people of various genders, ages, races, and ethnicities, are organizations overlooking the obvious, and failing to meet their fullest potential?

The fact is that any group, no matter how heterogeneous, runs the risk of losing its creative spark over time. Roles and norms become established, as well as pressure to conform, often resulting in “groupthink,” - an innovation killer. 

“Groupthink,” a deliberately Orwellian term popularized in 1972 by research psychologist Irving Janis, is “the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.” In other words, we go along to get along.

As good as consensus feels, it’s not necessarily best for any organization. What works better, scholars have found, is the conflict, or at least discomfort, that can result from another kind of diversity: the introduction of outsiders into established groups, ideally ones who doesn’t agree with the “old-timers” leading the pack.

The comfort zone, it turns out, isn’t necessarily the best place for generating great ideas. 

As the old adage goes “the customer is always right.” This is perhaps no truer than when it comes to product and content design today. Even if something is incredibly innovative, well executed, or spectacularly beautiful, it can remain relatively useless unless people can easily and logically operate it. And in an increasingly competitive marketplace, creating an optimally user-friendly experience is no longer a mere goal of design—it’s often the sole purpose.

Putting users at the center of the equation means designing experiences that can evolve as needed, as opposed to designing efficient systems that remain static. The former considers the needs, desires, and limitations of individual users and groups of users at each stage of the design process, whereas the latter is more of a permanent one-size-fits-all approach. And there’s no question as to which design method consumers prefer. In fact, many customers give up on a product if they think the manufacturer doesn’t care about them.

Designing in a forward-thinking manner can take business beyond the traditional modes of innovation. Establishing a diverse user experience team to establish the consumer’s tasks and goals can help achieve products that are intuitive and accessible. What’s more, conducting realistic evaluations can help determine what’s working, and what’s not.

New products that disrupt an established market can often mean “better functionality in addition to cost advantages.” So whether you are disrupting your own product line or that of another company, when innovation focuses on the user, it’s a win-win for consumers and companies."

My name is Richard Downes, and I specialize in helping companies hire experienced Analytics, Data Science, Machine Learning and NLP professionals in Europe and the U.S and have over 15 years of Recruitment / Staffing experience. If you are considering your next career move or are a company needing to make an experienced hire within any of these areas, please feel free to get in touch and take a look at my video introduction embedded below.