Eyes on the Prize – In a CoIN a flexible approach to changing conditions means more wins

In his fascinating research on collaborative innovation Peter Gloor, a Research Scientist at MIT’s Sloan School for Management Center for Collective Intelligence, identified a model he termed CoIN for, Collaborative Innovation Networks. He first named this model in the popular press in his book, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage through Collaborative Innovation Networks. His stated goal was to make CoIN’s the widespread model for organized innovation. A CoIN is a team of self-motivated people linked virtually that shares a collective vision, enabled by technology to collaborate in achieving a common mission (a specific innovation) by sharing ideas, information, and work.

Now for those business leaders sold on the concept, their primary concern may be that with limited resources they now feel that they must invest in creating CoIN’s across their organizations to create or sustain a competitive. This is not the case.

CoIN’s already exist across most organizations. What needs to take place is their rapid identification and ongoing nourishment. In order to achieve this we need to prime the organization to be receptive to fluid teams focused on delivering a specific value. The way these teams are buoyed is through shared context – they need to share a vision, mission, purpose that draws them together and they needs an organization that fosters the identification of those things and supports their pursuit.

Organizations improving their culture of innovation when utilizing CoINs create virtuous cycles of success. The shared victories of the teams over problems become their own reward. This environment of collaboration focused on innovation creates a collective efficiency that is self-perpetuating.

“When a company is growing and profitable, we tend to infer that it has a brilliant strategy, a visionary CEO, motivated people, and a vibrant culture. When performance falters, we’re quick to say the strategy was misguided, the CEO became arrogant, the people were complacent, and the culture stodgy.” – from The Halo Effect

One of the inherent pitfalls of CoINs (when they are working) is the the impact of the Halo Effect if they are not occasionally disrupted. The Halo Effect, based on the work of Phil Rosenzweig, highlights the fallacy of so much of the research of day which emphasizes the repetition of “best practices” and our tendency to make specific evaluations of performance based on an elemental impression. If a CoIN falls into a pattern of attempting to repeat it’s success it may make choices about it’s approach to innovation that are not based on the shifting business context.

The Halo Effect highlights the fact that performance is relative, not absolute. Based on this understanding it follows that the way in which companies succeed is when they make choices and do things differently than rivals. In essence it moves from a world geared toward management by via benchmarks and best practices to one which is governed by making choices under conditions of uncertainty. And this is where CoINs come into their own – they create a fluid platform for innovation that can respond effectively to changing conditions.

What this demands of leadership and innovation teams is a much more rigorous approach to reward-seeking and risk-mitigating behavior. The Halo Effect shifts our thinking about performance from one that looks for a formula for success, toward one that sees the world in terms of probabilities and possibilities. Innovation leadership is about making choices, under uncertainty, that have the best chance to raise the probabilities of success, while never imagining that success can be predictably achieved. Even good decisions may lead to unfavorable outcomes, but that doesn’t mean the decision was wrong. It simply provides an opportunity for the innovation team to make a new decision and find a new path to success.