The Innovation Equation

The Innovation Equation

Why do good teams, with the best intentions and excellent people, kill great ideas?

When does the wisdom of crowds become the tyranny of crowds?

What could an equation possibly tell us about designing more innovative teams and companies?

Excellent questions. For some answers, see my HBR article, “The Innovation Equation.”

For the backstory—and relevant wisdom from Sherlock Holmes—read below.

For the Five Laws of Loonshots see this article, for Life at 32F (why structure eats culture for lunch), see this article. Or you could just buy the book.


Every year, glossy magazines celebrate the winning cultures of innovative teams. Covers show smiling employees raising gleaming new products like runners raising the Olympic torch. Leaders reveal their secrets. And then, so often, the companies crash and burn.

The people didn’t change; the culture didn’t change; yet suddenly, they turn. Why?

Articles and books on culture have always felt squishy to me. I hear culture, I think yogurt. My resistance to the usual after-the-fact analyses of culture comes from being trained as a physicist. In physics, you identify clues that reveal fundamental truths. You build models and see if they can explain the world around you. 

And that’s what I’ve done in Loonshots: I show why structure may matter more than culture. A model of incentives and behaviors in organizations gives us an equation that can help us design more innovative teams and companies.

How can an equation possibly describe the behavior of people, teams, or companies?

No alt text provided for this image

Sherlock Homes, may have captured it best in The Sign of the Four:

“While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty.”

A sudden change in the behavior may be a mystery in business, but a similar pattern is the essence of a strange quirk of matter called a phase transition.

Imagine a large bathtub filled with water. Hit the surface with a hammer: a splash, and the hammer slips through the liquid. Then lower the temperature until the water freezes. Strike again, and the surface shatters.

No alt text provided for this image

The same molecules behave like a liquid in one context and a rigid solid in another. Why? How do molecules “know” to suddenly change their behavior? What forces cause a system to suddenly snap?

Here’s why it matters: When we understand those forces, we can control the transition. On snowy days, we toss salt on our sidewalks to lower the temperature at which that water freezes. We want the snow to melt rather than harden into ice. We use the same principle to engineer better materials. Adding a small amount of carbon to iron creates a much stronger material: steel. Adding nickel to steel creates some of the strongest alloys we know: the steels used inside jet engines and nuclear reactors.

Loonshots applies a similar principle to identify the small changes in structure—rather than culture—that can help us engineer more innovative organizations.

How exactly does this help us solve the mystery of innovation?

One clue: the four control parameters of organizational design. Those are the parameters we adjust, like adding salt to water or carbon to iron, that will transform rigid teams and help radical breakthroughs flourish.

That's the subject of “The Innovation Equation.”


How to Nurture the Crazy Ideas That Win Wars, Cure Diseases, and Transform Industries

No alt text provided for this image

Loonshots, an instant WSJ bestseller, has been translated into 18 languages and selected as an Amazon, Bloomberg, Financial Times, Forbes, Inc., Medium, Newsweek, Strategy + Business, Tech Crunch, and Washington Post Best Business Book of the year. It was the #1 Most Recommended Book of the Year in Bloomberg's annual survey of CEOs and entrepreneurs.

“If The Da Vinci Code and Freakonomics had a child together, it would be called Loonshots.” --Senator Bob Kerrey

Learn More

Alberto Savoia

Founder and Innovation Agitator at Pretotype Labs LLC

5 年

Great article Safi and I can't wait to get my hands on your upcoming book.? I've noticed that in most organizations the company is willing to make multiple "loonshot" bets because they know that while most will fail those which succeed will more than make up for the failures. In other words, the company's overall risk is distributed. But *individual* employees are much less willing to take those risks because their career/resume is tied to a single bet—the one project they work on. Trying to recruit employees into a fledgeling innovative project is difficult. While at Google, for example, most employees would choose to work in a well-known and already successful product (e.g., Search, Ads, GMail) than take their chances in a project that might fail and find themselves behind their peers a few years later. That's one of the key reasons why, as you state, the incentives must be carefully tuned. If the people working on "safe" projects have more security and more rewards than those working on risky innovation one should not be surprised that most people opt for the former. Alberto

Bonnie Clipper DNP, MA, MBA, RN, CENP, FACHE, FAAN

Top Global Healthcare Influencer + Virtual Nursing Expert + Nurse Futurist + Innovator + Strategic Advisor + Global Speaker + Best-selling author.

5 年

neat read. Thanks

Ian Tolfree

Theoretical Physicist turned Technology Commercialization Generalist | Seasoned Startup Executive & Advisor

5 年

Very interesting - A great way of articulating incentive structures and their effect on innovation.? Where does the transition in M happen as a company grows?? There must be a tie in to short vs. long term shareholder value.

Hubert Rampersad

Professor Innovation Management and Global Crusader and Futurist. Donald Trump: "To Hubert. Always think big"

5 年

REDEFINING INNOVATION https://bit.ly/2P8TPXO

  • 该图片无替代文字

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了