Showing posts with label innovation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label innovation. Show all posts

Thursday, March 1, 2012

What is Innovation?

What is innovation? The Oxford English Dictionarydefines it, somewhat unhelpfully, as: “the action or process of innovating”; but, then elaborates: “a new method, idea, product, etc.”  It then goes on to note: “innovation is crucial to the continuing success of any organization.”
As innovation is so important, I thought I would unpack the idea a bit. Many people think that “true” innovation is the invention of genuinely novel things which have never before been seen in the world. However, this is a very high bar at which virtually everyone would fail. Humans have been around for over 200,000 years and there are billions of us, so most things, one way or another, have been thought of before.  In my view, this strict definition isn’t particularly helpful.
I think a more useful definition is something like this: “The recognition and implementation of an idea or combination of ideas which brings a unique utility not before seen or used which adds value by fulfilling a consumer need.”
I spent Christmas 2011 reading Steve Job’s biography by Walter Isaacson. I have always thought of Steve Jobs as intrinsically innovative; but, what was special about him was not that he came up with entirely new ideas – the graphical user interface on the Macintosh, for example, had been invented by Xerox Parc and there had been many MP3 players before the iPod – but, that he came up with unique combinations; which, taken together, added real, never-before-seen value to the consumer.
Take the iPod: As a music player, it was certainly very elegantly designed; but, its capacity was well below the best that was available--at the same price--on the market at the time. What Apple did was combine the player with the web (in the form of iTunes) in such a way as the combination was unique. Suddenly, tasks that were really difficult, or close to impossible to do on the player, could be done on the Mac, thus freeing the player to do what it did best: play music. And, by deconstructing the album into songs--and miraculously persuading the music industry to play ball--it created a huge new market for legal downloads. The rest, as they say, is history.
Or take the iPhone: There were smartphones before the iPhone; but, they weren’t very smart. The iPhone’s unique advantage, apart from the legendary great design, was the App Store. Suddenly, the phone could become whatever you wanted it to be; thus, the real revolution in smartphones that we are living through today was born.
Google provides another good example: Google’s revolutionary idea, apart from its blisteringly good search, was AdWords. But, Google didn’t invent key word advertising; that honour went to Idealab that spun-out GoTo.com which was later renamed Overture and was then bought by Yahoo!. However, it was Google who hit the jackpot with search advertising, and it did so by reinventing the model. Overture had ordered ads by whoever bid the most that quite often resulted in the top advertisement not being the most appropriate.  It was simply the one with the deepest pockets.
Google changed the rules. It ordered results partly by the bidding and partly by the success of the ad which was measured by how many people clicked on it and on the quality of the ultimate landing page. And, it also limited the power of those with the deepest pockets by charging only one cent above the amount of the second highest bidder. These innovations revolutionised the medium.
So my argument is innovation comes from  the real innovators who can be—and often are--those that take ideas already out there and reinvent and recombine them in ways which create real utility for the user. As Steve Jobs said, paraphrasing Picasso*: “Good artists copy; great artists steal.”
In the innovation process at RBI Data Solutions, we always try to think as broadly as we can about customer problems. Of course, we would love to invent some genuinely and completely novel services that the world has never seen; but, we are just as happy if we construct combinations of already-existing components, provided we produce an elegant solution in the end. We are not yet as good as Steve Jobs at this process, but we are working on it.
First published on the internal Reed Elsevier Innovation website, February 2012
reblogged from Jim Muttrams blog bloggingrbi.blogspot.com

Friday, June 3, 2011

Organizing Innovation — Making the Invisible Visible

Some of you may remember the connect the dot painting color books kids used to have; there was no color on the page, just a series of dots that when connected by a wet paint brush revealed a picture defined by different colors. When I was five I thought it was magical, yet someone had thought through the underlying design that allowed a new picture to emerge.

How do leaders and managers organize innovation? While some might say innovation is not to be over-engineered (or it could stifle creativity), there is clear need for a process that connects the elements that contribute to innovative breakthroughs and their implementation. Elements desirable in company cultures today include collaboration, recognition, diversity, and empowerment (google searches on these terms bring up 33 million to 184 million results) — but how are all those incorporated into a process that develops innovation by design?

Price Waterhouse Coopers' report "Demystifying Innovation" connects the dots on business strategy and implementing innovation. To grow markets more than 2% a year radical innovation is required; PWC found that 43% of CEOs in pharmaceuticals, entertainment and media industries feel their greatest growth will come from new products and services. Nearly 40% of CEOs in PWC's study said they expect innovation to be co-developed, through collaboration with outside partners, customers and talent.

The intensive focus on new products and services requiresworkforce planners to identify strategic roles around those new products and services and critical competencies from talent who contribute to innovation. A process to develop innovation and critical thinking to drive a business strategy forward are organizational competencies every company needs. 
Creating conditions where talent can be close to the customer identifies pain points and changing demands. When innovation is a cultural value, it is driven by leadership ethics and recognition of talent who contribute to new thinking. 

Tapping people's creative process engages talent; a can-do culture of open-mindedness and questioning creates a reputation for being innovative and an employer of choice. Philosophers Socrates, Euripides and Descartes said, "question everything" and even comedian George Carlin reminded us we have forgotten to question. Asking "why?" and "why not?" can be the genesis for innovation. As leaders we can ensure those questions get answered.

Author: Joy Kosta
Human Capital Institute Blog, Friday 6/3/11

Thursday, December 16, 2010

New Ideas and Innovation From Human Resources

I woke up in the middle of the night thinking when was the last time you, the HR leader, came up with a new innovation or idea that led to increased revenue for your company?  I don't mean reductions in staff or reorgs that led to decreased fixed costs but real innovations or ideas that the company took on that grew the revenue stream.

So what do I really mean, well, it could be a new product line, a technology innovation, product redesign, production change that led to faster to market achievements. The things that most HR people do not get involved in on a daily basis. I have said early on in my career that HR is a revenue stream not a cost center. When I first mentioned that at my first HR job in Boston most people thought I was nuts.

I think it is incumbent for all HR practitioners to be so involved with the business that they provide daily input into the operations that lead to revenue gains. This is what the senior executive team looks for and most important the CEO of his team. So, I will ask the question again "when was the last time you provided a new idea or innovation that led to increased revenue and profit". This is part of your job!

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Innovation Needed Even In Recessions

NEW YORK - A theme is emerging from the flood of recent corporate earnings reports: Cost cuts are boosting profits. Investors are cheering, but they shouldn't. Even in these tough times, more CEOs should be talking about how they are seeking out investments, developing new technologies and making acquisitions.

That's what will set their companies up for a stronger future.

Intel Corp.'s former CEO Gordon Moore had it right when he said years ago that "you can't save your way out of a recession." He meant that even in the toughest times, companies have to spend money on new ideas.

"Customers don't come out of recessions spending the way they did before," said Chunka Mui, who has studied how companies can capitalize on opportunities during crises at his Chicago-based consulting firm, The Devil's Advocate Group. "They demand something different."

Surprisingly few companies are following Moore's advice of innovating during recessions.Companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index cut 25 percent on average from their capital expenditures expenses and 5 percent from research and development costs between the end of the third quarter last year and the second quarter this year, according to S&P.

Many have been crippled by the pullback in consumer and business spending as well as tight credit conditions, which is making it harder for companies to get loans to fund their operations. That's driven some to hoard cash and make drastic cost cuts. They're slashing jobs and wages and closing stores and factories.

"A downturn like this should force people's hand," he said.At Intel, Moore's philosophy has been used consistently since he led the chipmaker starting in the late 1970s. Over the years, the Santa Clara, Calif., company's top executives continue to openly discuss the company's strategy of investing heavily in downturns.

I expect your company has cut spending and limited its innovation process to save the bottom line correct? Is it prepared for the upturn?

This is an AP reprint

Monday, August 3, 2009

Unleveling the Playing Field

I read a great feature article in Fortune magazine this month about Marc Andreesen, the co-founder of Netscape and the social network Ning. I have to say it was inspirational in three(3) ways:
  1. it motivated me to dig deeper into the innovation idea bank and move forward with the latest technology to use it as a starting point for the next generation;
  2. that creative thinking is the lifeblood of business and entrepreneurship;
  3. there are people like him that motivate people like me.

So with that in mind as a mid-level HR executive, a senior level executive or someone just starting out you need to unlevel the playing field so YOU stand out as a leader and innovative/creative thinker to solve business problems. Certainly as HR continue to be represented at the table and those that are just getting invited you need to really stand out and inspire and move those around you. How do you do that you say for those not yet there or in a company that views HR as an administrative function here are some important ways:

  • you need negotiation and influencing skills that are strategy based;
  • you need to take the lead on innovation and develop practices that drive growth - KNOW THE BUSINESS INSIDE AND OUT;
  • have strong business acumen and a keen eye for identifying high-potential leaders before someone tells you;
  • deliver value daily to your internal and external constituencies as well as building extraordinary personal leadership qualities that resonate throughout the life cycle of your business;
  • develop frameworks for global exportation and strategies from a product and supply chain prospective;
  • get involved with your investor relations program - evaluating it with a ad-hoc team;
  • and finally, conventional is passe so exploit technology and social networking to manage talent, HR, and the business with intricate involvement with your CEO.

I hope that you will look at these thoughts and grow from them. If you agree, drop me an email, text, Twitter, or Linkedin message . Oh, BTW my former CEO & Executive HR were just like Marc. Thanks Greg, Iain, and Mike.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

How Can You Find the Most Promising New Opportunities? Hold an Innovation Tournament

Financial innovation is often blamed for having landed the global economy in a mess, but it has also been said that innovation will get us out of the present downturn. Still, companies can be forgiven for feeling that spending time and money thinking about the "next big thing" is a frivolous exercise. After all, every dollar counts these days, and CEOs and their executive teams are busy enough just getting their companies through the day-to-day demands of the recession.

It needn't be that way, according to Christian Terwiesch and Karl Ulrich. As the two Wharton professors of operations and information management point out in their new book, Innovation Tournaments: Creating and Selecting Exceptional Opportunities, if done with greater focus, identifying new opportunities shouldn't be seen as a luxury, but a necessity. They note that creativity and process-driven rigor can actually go hand in hand when it comes to vetting and managing new ideas. One way to do this, they explain, is by making new ideas compete with one another in numerous rounds of vetting -- that is, by running them through "innovation tournaments" -- so that the strongest and most promising ideas make it to the final round.

Rich rewards await companies that make the leap. Among the innovative firms that the professors cite is the U.S. pharmaceutical giant Merck, whose cholesterol-reducing drug Zocor, launched in the early 1990s, has delivered gross profits of $10 billion on an investment of around $500 million.

THink of this as a Six Sigma test for your organization. Don't you think HR should take the lead on initiating this type of innovation with the product management group and the CEO?

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Big Ideas and Hard Times - Can the Possibility Go Together

We are currently in a period that we can reasonably call hard times - we're in a recession in fact.

"Some of the most powerful and lasting management methods were launched during tough times, when companies needed new ways to manage costs and grow.

Here is a look back at some of the biggest ideas over the past 100 years." Jena McGregor, Business Week.

What innovation or big idea are you working on to add to the list? Thanks Peter Roche for this.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Innovation Thrives Among German Firms, Though Hurdles Persist

On the face of it, the idea that Germany could improve its capacity for innovation seems almost ludicrous. Germany is already the world's number-one exporter -- and few of those exports are anything but complex, high-value goods. The country already registers more patents per capita than any other nation. It spends as much on research per capita as anyone. In certain fields, particularly alternative energy, the country seems on track to gain global recognition as a center of innovation and excellence.

"It's absolutely certain that there is no other country with as many (global) market leaders as Germany," says Hermann Simon, chairman of Simon-Kucher & Partners, a global marketing and pricing consultancy headquartered in Bonn.

Christian Terwiesch, a Wharton professor of operations and information management who grew up in Germany, agrees. "If you think about the auto industry, if you think about the chemical industries, if you think about ERP software, and more recently, if you think about alternative energy ... in most of these, Germany is actually cutting edge," he says.

In a way, it's not surprising. Like Japan, Germany has no other way to excel but through innovation. As Manfred Perlitz, a professor of international management at the University of Manheim, puts it, Germany's only natural resource is rain. "At the end of the day, the German economy can only survive through innovation."

Yet, as global competition grows, Germany's tried-and-true formula of developing excellent products and then improving them relentlessly appears to be increasingly vulnerable. Critics point, first, to the fact that Germany largely missed the dawn of the digital age. With a few important exceptions, such as SAP, the information technology revolution was not a made-in-Germany boom, even as Taiwan and Korea grew into major technology powers. The Internet, too, was created largely abroad, not just through the work of such technology giants as the United States and Japan, but from places that were once economically obscure, such as Estonia (Skype) and Israel (Instant Messenger).

Knowledge@Wharton interviewed several German business innovation experts and professors at Wharton about the substantial promise of continued German innovation, and obstacles they perceive that stop it from becoming even better. The picture that emerges is of a country with many important advantages in terms of skills, geography and business culture. It is a tradition that remains strong and vibrant. Yet, there are areas of concern, particularly in how this rich inheritance fits with a changed world in which research and manufacturing are distributed all over the globe.

A Tradition of Excellence

Historically, perhaps the most important driver of German innovation is its high standard of technical expertise. Since the middle ages, Germans have developed high standards of craftsmanship in many fields, a tradition that continues today. "It's an outstanding history of craftsmanship that I think is very important for innovation," Terwiesch says.

In Germany, workers in a number of industries still study as apprentices for three-and-a-half years, during which time they work three days a week and earn a modest salary, and then go to school the other two days. The workers who come out of this system, says Simon, are highly qualified. Nor does the technical focus stay only on the shop floor. Unlike the U.S., where the most ambitious engineers are often drawn into business school and later sent into general management, in Germany, engineering excellence alone is still the best way to get ahead, according to Terwiesch. Simon, who has written a book titled, Hidden Champions of the 21st Century, about 500 of the "world's best unknown companies," notes that half the CEOs on his list are engineers.

"The way you establish leadership in a German company is through deep domain expertise," Terwiesch notes. "I have family members who are still working in Germany. If I look at the way they have built their careers and the level of product knowledge they have, it's absolutely amazing. But you need it. You become an executive primarily because you know what you're doing."

Even at the very top of the company, he says, domain experts are still likely to be in charge. "You could take any board member from BMW and they could, by hand, take a car apart and put it together again," he says.

Stability First 

Respect for expertise leads to a high degree of loyalty between workers and their companies. Longevity at a company is seen as a key competitive advantage -- both for the company and for the worker.

Many people stay with the same company their whole career -- and in some communities, families will have worked for two or three generations with the same firm. "It's an emotional advantage of German workers that they can be even relatively assured that they won't lose their job," says Bernhard Wendeln, president of WEGA Support, the family investment company of the entrepreneurial families Wendeln and Kläne.

Since German workers tend to spend more time at a particular job than those in the UK or the U.S., they learn a great deal about their products. As a result of long years of experience, they develop deep expertise and a long-term focus on trying to do the right thing for the company.

Recalling a stint at BMW, Terwiesch remembers meeting many extremely skilled workers and being amazed at the depth of their product insights in the prototyping laboratory. Although they had not been to college, he says, they had an incredible amount of tacit knowledge about the product. "These people were bright like I had not seen before."

This effect may be even more profound in the Mittelstand, Germany's fabled midsize companies, the kind of publicly unknown but highly profitable firms profiled by Simon in his book about hidden champions.

Terwiesch agrees. "People working there, even people without academic degrees, get really outstanding expertise in metallurgy or some very specific detail of a technology. That creates deep knowledge and an enormous competitive advantage that has, over the ages, made theMittelstand a very important part of the German economy and also a significant driver of innovation."

The roots lie deep in German culture, experts say. "It has to do with the German lifestyle and career patterns," suggests Terwiesch. "In the U.S., it's all about change. People change jobs all the time: They do a startup, it doesn't work, they do another start up, or they go work for a company. They're constantly moving. Germany, on the other hand, is a society that favors stability."

A Limiting Focus

Some critics see risks in this inward focus, and argue that the kind of technical perfectionism that a corporate culture can instill sometimes results in economically unproductive activities. This includes solving problems that don't matter to customers or creating an economically inefficient level of vertical integration.

For example, some of Simon's hidden champions insist on manufacturing virtually everything themselves. Enercon, a leading wind power technology firm, makes 80% of its equipment in-house while other wind power companies make only 20% of their own equipment. "It's very different from the typical strategies of large corporations," Simon says.

Enercon succeeded despite this degree of obsession, but some critics have argued that being overly focused on technical or product expertise can also blind a company to game-changing developments. One leading slide projector company noted by Simon in his book kept on making high-quality slide projectors even after digital projection began to take over the market. Eventually, customers slipped away, but the company did not evolve. It lost its market simply because it couldn't adapt to the digital era.

But that failure may be the exception, at least for small- and medium-sized German companies, which typically stay close to their customers and remain small and agile enough to respond to their changing demands. One reason for the outperformance of some Mittelstand companies is that they talk to their customers more often than do larger companies, where engineering sometimes goes on for its own sake, Perlitz says.

Although German executives are changing places more often now than in the past, the risk aversion of many talented German engineers and other professionals endures. Often, even the most promising young companies have difficulty recruiting capable engineers. Much of the country's best homegrown talent is locked inside the country's great corporations, leaving young companies hard-pressed to find qualified employees. This might not be the case in a different kind of business culture.

Demographics are also taking their toll, as more and more of the country's technologists retire. "Ifyou do a body count, the country is losing a lot of engineers and scientists," says Terwiesch. "There's a big demand for highly qualified engineers that is currently unfilled, and German immigration laws are not making it easy to bring in people from the outside. Over the last 10 years, there has been an enormous demand for good scientists and engineers, way more than the universities can produce."

Even when working permits are not an issue, it is difficult to attract talent to Germany. Many of the graduates of the German section of Wharton's Lauder program, for example, don't end up working in Germany. The barrier? "My impression is that, in most cases, it's salary. The students feel they earn more in an American company, and most of my students stay in the United States after they have the Wharton degree," says Susanne Shields, director of the German culture and language program for Wharton's Lauder Institute. Some also shy away because they hear rumors about long days in the German branches of the biggest consulting companies.

Without sufficient homegrown talent and with limits on immigration, perhaps the only other option is outsourcing. In his positioning of Tata Consulting Services, Ananthanarayan Padmanabhan, director of central European operations, is careful to speak of his company, not as a firm that outsources jobs, but as a firm that is importing innovation -- a good spin, certainly, and given the shortage of engineering talent within Germany, probably more accurate.

Yet in spite of the shortages, Germany's high-priced engineers seem to be competing well in this brave new world of low-cost talent. One case in point: Although trade is often seen as a zero-sum game as far as labor is concerned, Germany's engineering wunderkinder are finding ways to profit from the new world order without losing their own advantage. Already, China and India have both proven an important market for Germany. For example, 40% of Tata's Nano -- the revolutionary $2000 "people's car" -- is sourced from German parts, according to Simon. Nor do the contributions end with parts. Chinese factories may supply the world, he adds, but it's German companies that supply the Chinese factories.

Fear of Failure

The hierarchical nature of German companies may be another barrier to innovation, at least in some rapidly changing industries. Compared to America, the German company tends to be much more hierarchical, says Shields. "The organization is very structured, which can be a good thing. But on the other hand, Germans are not very flexible so it takes a long time for new ideas to come through. There is no open door policy. They cannot just walk in and talk to the boss and say, 'This is what I observe and what I suggest...'"

German education, too, tends to favor knowledge over creativity, says Dietmar Grichnik, a professor of entrepreneurship at the WHU Otto Beisheim School of Management. "This hinders entrepreneurial activities later on."

Ultimately, perhaps, it's a fear of failure that may limit innovation most. According to Grichnik, the legal obstacles to starting a business are not too high in Germany. It's the social norms, he notes, that stop them -- particularly the fear of failure. More than 50% of Germans polled say that fear of failure is a big reason they would not want to start their own company.

But slowly, things are changing, Grichnik adds. A few universities are now offering entrepreneurship courses. Some government agencies offer seed capital, which was once difficult to find. Students are also trying their luck at startups while they are still in the university, taking advantage of their school years as a low-risk time to start a business.

"It's a kind of chicken-and-egg problem," says Jurgen Hablicher, the head of venture capital fund Mountain Cleantech. "There haven't been enough successes that people can look to for inspiration, but without those examples, no one will try."

What are your thoughts on this article?



Thursday, January 8, 2009

Finding Money for Innovation: Develop Those People Skills

Innovations typically involve trial, error and outright failure before turning into successful products or services. Thomas Edison, for example, conducted approximately 10,000 failed experiments before perfecting the incandescent light bulb. For decades, leading businesses have willingly shouldered the expense and the risk of innovating as the price of staying ahead of competitors.

But innovating has become a lot tougher lately, according to a panel of technology experts who recently spoke at the University of Pennsylvania's Executive Master's in Technology Management program. With R&D budgets shrinking and markets retrenching in a worldwide economic crisis, the panelists noted, technologists will need more than lab expertise to convince their employers to keep the research funding spigots open.

Indeed, the ability to communicate well and other "soft skills" are just as important as technological expertise when it comes to selling new ideas to investors or senior management, suggested several members of the panel, which was titled "Street-Smart Innovation to Align Emerging Technology and Business." In addition, future scientists, researchers and program managers should focus on aligning innovative projects with company goals. As panelist Nicholas D. Evans, vice president of the innovation division at Unisys, pointed out, it's much easier to justify budgets for speculative projects that show an obvious commercial benefit to the parent company.

That lesson became painfully obvious this past summer to employees of the storied Bell Labs research group, based in northern New Jersey. Alcatel-Lucent, owner of Bell Labs, all but gutted much of the non-commercial "basic research" performed by the lab. The product of a rocky 2006 merger, struggling Alcatel-Lucent sought to align Bell Labs' operations more closely with the parent's commercial interests in wireless, optics, networking and computer science.

So, how do organizational entrepreneurs keep innovation alive in companies looking to slash costs? And how do start-ups and growth companies attract investors when the rest of the economy is melting? That's another place where those soft skills come in handy. Several of the panelists suggested that while technical people are generally not known for soft skills, those individuals who desire funding to continue their work would do well to acquire them.

Anthony P. Green, a vice president with first-round funding group Ben Franklin Technology Partners, said he frequently sees entrepreneurs stumble because they lack such skills. All too often, entrepreneurs come across as rude, dismissive and disrespectful to audiences of potential investors, thereby "infuriating the investment community." Panelist Eric F. Bernstein, a laser surgeon, dermatologist and technology entrepreneur, echoed that point. "Business is all about relationships. They need to like your idea, but they also need to like you."

Suzanne Taylor, portfolio director of corporate operations for Unisys, pointed out that budget handlers are also more inclined to favor innovation if it can be shown to cut costs. Innovation department heads must become adept at "making the case for maximizing productivity and reducing waste," Taylor said. This requires excellent communication skills, she added, including the fine art of schmoozing. And the higher up the case is made, the better for the innovator, added Sanjoy Ray, director of global application engineering for pharmaceutical giant Merck. "Executive sponsorship is very powerful. It provides 'air cover.'"

Do you agree? Send me your comments and thoughts on this issue.