Innovation Perception – the joys and disappointments of expectations
May 19, 2010 by Andrew (Drew) · Leave a Comment
It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive.
- C.W. Leadbetter
The best phrase to capture the spirit of innovation is not, “Eureka!” as some would have us believe. That is more appropriate for the instant of invention. Rather the most fitting phrase for innovation is, “that’s interesting…” 
This fits because it is through the discovery of the unexpected while we work toward solutions addressing our most wicked problems that we begin to tease out the most robust ideas. The willful focus on meeting our expectations is the next cognitive bias that we must address as we seek to build a culture that supports innovation. We are prisoners to perception when we must strive to be open to the possibility of surprise.
Punished for trying
Blessed are they who see beautiful things in humble places where other people see nothing.
- Camille Pissarro
Perceptions are often erroneous. Yet, we base much of our decision making on our perceptions of circumstances. Those perceptions are driven by our expectations. The errors of our perception may be systematically related to interpersonal expectations (what we want from each other or anticipate from each other), our in-the-moment motives (our expectation of need fulfillment), value patterns (what we expect to attract us, repel us, what we prize or disregard), and our personal defense mechanisms (our emotional defenses triggered by our previous experiences brought to bear on current circumstances by our present expectations.) With all this going on, all the time, how the heck do we even get out of bed in the morning?
We psych ourselves up to it. This is a true challenge especially when we expect to be punished for our failures.
In a recent Q&A session conducted by the good folks at 800-CEO-READ, Mark Frauenfelder the Editor in Chief of Make Magazine talked about how the current education system is designed to prevent discovery through failure. His approach is to throw oneself directly into the path of failure, as often as possible in order to be “effective.” Frauenfelder sees that the inability to make mistakes is tied directly to the expectation of poor marks unless perfection is attained…
Students are afraid to make mistakes in class because errors result in bad grades. Striving for a “perfect score” takes your mind off the real goal, which is to learn and to be effective. In organizations we are afraid to make mistakes because a mistake is a convenient way for others assign blame. A fear-based workplace discourages risk-taking and experimentation. The worst mistake is to punish people for making mistakes in the pursuit of doing something in better way.
In innovation, if we tie our efforts only to an expectation of success, then our efforts will become smaller over time. Each attempt will have less at stake. We will risk less, because the anticipated blame associated with any failure is too much to bear. And who likes to be punished for trying?
Say…what’s a mountain goat doing way up here in a cloud bank?
People only see what they are prepared to see.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Our perception can also make it difficult to see the circumstances around us. There is a classic Gary Larson cartoon drawn from the perspective of looking over the shoulders of two pilots out the cockpit window. The caption reads: “Say…what’s a mountain goat doing way up here in a cloud bank?” Funny and frightening. But this is also emblematic of how our expectations can cause us to miss large perceptional indicators. Our minds are unable to wrap themselves around such a disconnection between what we expected to see and what we actually see.
Rather than seeing that something is different to what we expect, we develop a blind spot to it. This perception bias has been identified for many years. One of the earliest examples was in research conducted by Seymour Smith, an advertising researcher from the 1960’s who saw that people were screening in and out what they were seeing and hearing based on what their expectations were. He noted that,
“They do so because of their attitudes, beliefs, usage preferences and habits, conditioning, etc.” People who like, buy, or are considering buying a brand are more likely to notice advertising than are those who are neutral toward the brand. (Source)
More recently this research was bolstered by the work of doctoral student Alison Jing Xu and her research partner Robert Wyer of the University of Illinois, College of Business. Their research focused on the examination of the power of puffery. Scott Berinato brought this to light in his recent post at Harvard Business Review, The Power and Perils of Puffery, in which he described their experiments in assessing the influence of the perception of their subjects in relation to subjects about which they were familiar or not. As cliché as it might seem, they structured their questions for men around beer and for women they focused on a personal care product, a cleansing gel.
In both situations where the subjects felt they were familiar with a particular product, they were less likely to be influenced by puffery in support of that product. Unsubstantiated claims were a turn-off. But when they were unfamiliar, they were more accepting of the unverifiable claims. It seems expectation, derived from past knowledge and experience, determined what was acceptable or not. When there were greater unknowns, puffery won the day.
How is this reflected in innovation?
Innovation is the attempt to create a new solution where none are known. It seems that when we are faced with the unknown we are more inclined to rely on our unquestioned perceptions, which rest on our expectations, rather than seek to push and explore to seek a deeper understanding. Unquestioned perception is an impediment to innovation because it limits possibilities.
It seems, as with so many other cognitive biases forewarned is forearmed. If we know we are predisposed to perceptional bias that is half the battle. Our awareness of that bias is a signal to dig a little deeper, question a little harder, and fail a little more a little more often. After all innovation is not about any single eureka moment, it’s about the next interesting discovery just beyond the horizon.
If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it is – infinite.
- William Blake
Innovation Framing – the challenge of blinkered thinking
May 10, 2010 by Andrew (Drew) · 1 Comment
Two quite opposite qualities equally bias our minds – habits and novelty.
- Jean de la Bruyere
The life of the mind has such a significant bearing on the ability to innovate. We know that a fruitful mind is fundamental to the applied creativity and invention of innovation. Our time and attention are studiously focused on the creative spark, the genesis of new ideas, and the process of ideation. In this effort the mind can be stubborn, unwilling or simply distracted. 
Recently we explored the power of anchoring and the ways it can prevent us from abandoning an idea that is past its prime, or how it might prevent us from seeing the value in a different perspective, or the usefulness of another’s fresh take. Unfortunately that is only one of many ways in which our minds can prevent us from being truly, madly, deeply…innovative.
It’s my hilltop and everything looks fine from here
We don’t see the world the way it is. We see the world the way we are.
- Anaïs Nin
We think we are broad-minded and open to new ideas; actually, we look where we’re told and think in circles. Now, I’m not saying that we are all sheeple. But a little deluded about our good selves? Absolutely. There is a whole world of marketing that is based on self delusion.
Consider the concept of “green washing” – essentially the habit of nefarious companies painting a thin film of environmental friendliness on their products in order to appeal to our better natures. Oh, and sell more of their stuff. It’s objectionable. It’s dishonest. And it works a treat.
Why?
Well, many of us like to think of ourselves as being good stewards of the environment, as long as it doesn’t require too much effort. Those who recycle everything, have taken to growing their own food bio-dynamically in their backyards and have forsaken their cars for other communal or less aggressively carbon-footprint-enlarging forms of travel are among the minority. A vocal group, yes, but small. The keen but passive majority wants being “green” to be easy.
Willing and eager companies meet that need by framing their products in ways we immediately relate to. They use terms like, ‘eco-friendly’ and ‘energy efficient’ and use colors that evoke Spring days and clean lines. The contents of the packages are not so different as their ‘bad’ alternatives but because of the way these products are framed for us, we buy them. Often that purchase is at a premium. Because “it’s good for the environment” and we want to do good.
When it comes to how we see the world, we are the heroes of our own stories. We consider ourselves immune to marketing and yet statistically we fall prey to the same well-positioned point-of-sale display in the supermarket as the next person. We like to think we are open minded, but as was illustrated in the movie “Crash” we have deep-seated biases and prejudices that flash to the surface without us realizing it.
You really want to see the world the way it is? Really?
Bias and prejudice are attitudes to be kept in hand, not attitudes to be avoided.
- Charles Curtis
We don’t want to see the world the way it is. In fact we have a whole series of techniques, cognitive biases, which we have developed to help us not see the world the way it is. They are there to help us cope. To help us sort through the nearly infinite number of sensory inputs we experience each day so that we can make meaning of our surroundings. Framing is simply one other dominant device in the bias tool kit.
If anchoring locks us into a particular perspective, preventing us from seeing something differently, framing has an opposite effect. Framing is a set of personal filters, emotional, psychological, and intellectual constructs that we use to gather, sort, organize and analyze information about the world around us. Frames are our mental blinkers. The shades that focus us on what we think we really want to be thinking about. Framing influences the background context of our choices, often as simply as in the way in which a question is worded.
Framing enables us to act with ‘pseudocertainty’. It eliminates or lessens doubt as a way of short-cutting our need for analysis. The old saw originated by Mark Twain, that there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics”, is another representation of the way in which framing occurs as it reveals the persuasive power of numbers. A key issue with framing is that it may be acted upon us, via marketing or through a desire to influence, or we may frame issues ourselves through our beliefs, education, ethics, etc.
How does framing influence innovation?
As a process of short-cutting our need to analyze or explore a situation or issue more deeply, especially our understanding of the immediate context, framing blinds us to possibilities and options. We simply don’t ‘see’ alternatives because of the influence of framing. We look where we’re pointed or only where our blinkered perspective will allow.
A classic example of this is from the work of Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman and his partner Amos Tversky. (We’re big fans of Kahneman and Tversky at Primed Associates!) They offered a group of research subjects two scenarios, both with essentially the same data but framed differently. In it, the subjects were asked to make a choice between two alternatives. Due to the way the scenario framing changed, the majority of subjects flipped their choices. Same data, simply re-framed meant a very different result.
I am committed to my strategic focus on…Oh look! Kittens!
When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.
- Max Planck
Framing is a psychological version of the Heisenberg Principle in action. In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states “by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known.” For the lay person – when you focus and look at one aspect of a situation, other aspects become less clear. Framing positions us to understand one perspective which lessens the impact, influence or even visibility of another alternative. We get blinkered.
We need to fight being framed. (Or stop taking our own framing at face value.)
In innovation, it is necessary to see things we haven’t seen before. To combat the influence of framing, to expand the range of possibilities, it is necessary to call it out. Questioning assumptions is one way of addressing the undue influence of framing. Another way is to literally take the opposite position on data. If we reverse our position previously unseen options might be revealed. As our perspective greatly determines what we see, changing that perspective means we see things anew. Finally, we can often build our way out of how we are framed by exploring new approaches through design thinking and prototyping. A prototype is a great tool for helping us reframe our view of a challenge.
What’s your perspective? How blinkered are you?
Innovation Anchors – How unwitting fixation blocks delivering new ideas to market
April 30, 2010 by Andrew (Drew) · Leave a Comment
What people want isn’t always what they really want.
- Andrew Ellis
Using focus is a powerful technique for getting things done. It narrows our efforts and gives us a specific target to meet. A dancer, who has been asked to spin in place uses a technique called 
“spotting” to provide a stabilizing point of focus. Spotting has several benefits: it keeps a dancer oriented and aware of the movement, direction, and location of their body in space; it can prevent disorientation caused by lack of visual focus; it increases the overall speed of the rotational spin; it can make the spin appear faster than it is; and it also aids in reducing the dizziness associated with spinning. All of which are excellent goals that serve a purpose during particular sections of a dance that require that motion.
Using spotting to anchor yourself at other times while dancing may not be appropriate.
Find a spot then [re]turn to it
The challenge with focus is that once established it can be hard to break off, even when it might be best to turn our attention elsewhere. We have become anchored to an idea, such as, sticking with a new product in the marketplace when all indications are that it will not be successful. Or, always using the same criteria for selecting services to be developed even though market conditions and customer expectations have changed.
For those who seek to innovate this pattern of anchoring is deadly. For the oft-quoted but rarely ascribed comment bears truth of the matter, “if we always do what we have always done, we will always get what we always got.”
Falling in love with your own idea
Often during decision making, people anchor, overly relying on a particular piece of information or a specific value. This anchor then influences the way they account for other variables in the situation, regardless of any specific relationship between them. Usually once the anchor is set there is a bias toward that value. And each of us is prone to this pattern.
In organizations where ideas battle it out for supremacy, we can find ourselves furiously defending our position when the alternative may be better. We have fallen so in love with our own idea that we cannot see the power of another and perhaps we cannot see the power it holds over us.
One recent example of a whole industry becoming anchored (in the belief that the good times would continue to roll) was the financial services industry with regard to credit default swaps. Much has been written on the subject, such as the great post at Psychology Today is by Eric Jaffe. A great line boils down the entire sorry episode quite neatly, “…that our bubble wasn’t just one of bad investing, it was a bubble of bad thinking.” Rouler less bon temps, indeed.
The process of becoming anchored is not hard work either. We fall into anchoring with relative ease. It is one of our shortcuts for managing the large amounts of data with which we have to contend everyday. And once we anchor on a specific data point it is very difficult to change as Dan Ariely describes in his instant classic, Predictably Irrational. Early on in his book Dan describes an experiment with some students in which he asked them to take the last two digits of their social security number and write them beside a list of objects he provided on a sheet of paper. The objects were wine, chocolate, etc. Nothing of special significance. He then asked the students if they would pay more or less than that number (as expressed as whole dollars) and to indicate that on the paper. Finally he asked them to write down what they would be willing to pay for reach object.
We simply keep coming home
The end result of the Ariely experiment was that those who’s social security end numbers were 0-19 offered the lowest price points while those with social security end numbers from 80-99 offered the highest. And everyone in between offered graduating prices! When asked if their social security end numbers had any influence on the prices they offered everyone said absolutely not. Yet those very numbers anchored each group of students as surely as if they had been classified as such from the outset.
The students couldn’t help themselves because they didn’t even know what had occurred.
But even if they had known about the concept of anchoring another classic aspect of this behavior is that even if we do change our perspective and re-orient ourselves we fall back into an anchored state. We switch one anchor for another. Essentially clinging to our need for a mental shortcut.
Fighting the good fight
I am like a book, with pages that have stuck together for want of use: my mind needs unpacking and the truths stored within must be turned over from time to time, to be ready when occasion demands.
- Seneca
For those focused on innovation, willfully introducing changes into existing stable systems, anchoring is one of many behaviors that needs to be addressed. Because at its heart an anchor is a habit we have created for ourselves. Either through repetition or proximity we have placed ourselves under its influence.
To tackle the effects of anchoring you have to call it out. Unless we do highly rational people will make decisions based on the highly illogical. Past experience, ill-considered under present circumstances. According to social psychologist Tom Pyszczynski, “when our livelihoods are threatened we lock into our current mindsets, ignore open discussion, and view those with opposing ideas not as different but as enemies.” When we seek to innovate, to explore new concepts we need to give ourselves the permission to leave old mindsets behind. This takes practice.
One excellent way to practice is the use of design thinking. Design thinking provides a structured way to explore new ideas to pressing challenges in a manner that is low-threat, yet high yield enough to push the envelope. An excellent recent explanation of design thinking as a model and practice comes in IDEO President and CEO Tim Brown’s book, Change By Design. Full disclosure: I now a reseller of a business simulation based on the design thinking approach developed by IDEO and ExperiencePoint. More on that later.
So, when you stop spinning are you dizzy or ready to weigh anchor to focus on the next new thing?
Innovation Psychology – Innovation is a hostage to what we think and feel
April 27, 2010 by Andrew (Drew) · Leave a Comment
No psychologist should pretend to understand what he does not understand… Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand nothing.
- Anton Chekhov
Why explore the impact of psychology on innovation?
Organization psychology examines the relations between the individual and the tasks he or she is posed, between the individual and the surrounding social context in which he or she find themselves, and between the individual and the formal organizational structure. The practice of innovation, the creation and invention of new products, services, business models is very much at the heart of organizations seeking to increase their long-term success. The psychology of organizations plays a primary role in the effectiveness innovation practices and outcomes.
Also, when we consider a psychological framework for innovation it is also vital to include a broader understanding of social psychology. Social psychology is the scientific study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by others; regardless of whether or not that presence is actual, imagined, or implied. This influence is especially important when we factor in the influences on innovation of open source models which reach beyond the formal boundaries of organizations.
In order to create a wider understanding of the psychology underpinning innovation in the next few weeks and months regular posts will focus on those aspects of psychology that hold sway in the practice of innovation (whether we choose to acknowledge them or not.) Topics will include anchoring, heuristics, and biases, as well as cognition, group dynamics and resilience. The intent is to unlock their power and influence and improve their management in the development of robust innovation cultures.
For an innovation culture to be successfully created and fostered over time, it is a necessity to have a better sense of how people interact and engage. So let’s explore…
Teaching a Person to Fish – Learning and Development for Innovation
March 30, 2010 by Andrew (Drew) · Leave a Comment
Why learning how to innovate is as important as the act itself
Learn everything you can, anytime you can, from anyone you can – there will always come a time when you will be grateful you did.
- Sarah Caldwell
It’s like any muscle – you have to use it or lose it
Give a person a fish and they will eat for a day. Teach a person to fish and they will eat for a lifetime.
- Chinese Proverb
Learning is physical. At its most basic level, learning is the process of changing the structure and actions of neurons so they retain information in long-term memory in both the temporal and parietal lobes of the cortex. Increasingly, neuroscience will play a larger role in our understanding of the process of learning.
This doesn’t mean to say that there is still not a wealth of information to be gleaned from cognitive psychology, behavioral psychology, and social psychology as they relate to the way in which people learn. Neuroscience will simply afford us another window into the way our minds work. And what will we do with that knowledge?
What both the behavioral observation of learning and the physical understanding of learning agree on is that for learning to be lasting it must be practiced. In fact, the best learners not only practice, they study – hard. Malcolm Gladwell proposes that for true excellence to emerge the magic number of hours required to dedicated practice and ever-increased proficiency is 10,000. Less than that and the learning may be substantial but will not result in elevated performance. The same can be said of innovation. Unpracticed innovators make fewer cognitive leaps, fewer bold choices, have fewer insights and their innovations are poorer for it.
The approach of IDEO, the design shop headquartered in Palo Alto, takes the concept of the learner even further and describes “T-shaped” people. These are learners who have not only gone deep into an understanding of a particular field of interest (the perpendicular stroke in the “T”), they have also developed a broad awareness and understanding of many subjects (the horizontal stroke in the “T”). A consistent attention to both types of learning increases the utility of these people in the design and innovation domain. Perhaps the Gladwell number needs to be an equation, i.e., 10,000 x 1000 x n? Where “n” is the number of separate domains of learning pursued?
Think differently for different results
Tell me and I’ll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I’ll understand.
- Chinese Proverb
Innovation fosters new thinking, including the way we learn to think. The way we create the promoters (activities or environmental factors) that support learning is a key component to improving learning and development outcomes. Did you know that there are five key promoters to consider? They are:
1. Innate learning programs (the things we just know, you know?) (Gallistel, 2002)
2. Repetition of information. (Repetition of information – get it?!) (Squire and Kandel, 2000)
3. Excitement at the time of learning (Woo Hoo!) (Cahill & Gorski, 2003; LeDoux, 2002)
4. Eating carbohydrates at time of learning (A personal favorite) (Korol, 2002)
5. 8-9 hours of sleep after learning (To sleep perchance to dream) (Kuriyama, Stickgold, & Walker, 2004)
Very few learning programs actually consciously accommodate one or two of these promoters, let alone all five. Is it any wonder that the process of learning may seem draining and even futile at times? To maximize the learning and development outcomes change the nature of the learning environment, change the perspectives of the participants, and change the delivery mechanism. All can be achieved in simple ways. Use a rapid prototyping method – what can you change in under an hour for less than $100 (or less than $10)?
When considering learning and development focused on innovation practices the inclusion of elements that actually promote learning might be worthwhile, might it not? Take two innate learning programs for example; the first allows us to rapidly associate words and labels to objects within situations, and a second enables us to compute social status and insults to social status. If we acknowledge and fold into our learning and development activities these innate learning programs we can structure experiences that capitalize on them. Improvisational activities, like improv theatre games, could help us unlock the influence resident within these learning programs so that the experience fosters increased innovative behaviors (resilience, risk-taking, generosity, etc.)
Letting go and leaving justification behind
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.
- Benjamin Franklin
Lessons learned are not necessarily procedural or systemic, they are predominately behavioral and social. One of the key learned behaviors is that with success comes praise and possibly adulation. Well, the process of innovation actually requires that we be less-than-successful at times. Yes, we sometimes have the glorious opportunity to fail (perhaps not the first time, bust certainly more publicly than we would like.)
There are two essential behaviors to learn and develop in order to “make it” as an innovator. The first is the ability to let go of an idea. The concept of ownership within corporate organizational life is one that people learn early. The people with the best ideas not only “win” they also receive the reward of advancement. That may mean access to things previously unavailable, i.e., the offer of increased responsibility, or even greater compensation, perks and benefits.
A successful innovator needs to understand that her idea may actually find greater success when used by another or in conjunction with another person’s idea. They also need to understand that while their idea might be a great idea, if there is no passion for it among the people who need to capitalize on it and bring it to market then it is as good as dead and useless to all. Letting go is an essential learning that is counter to so much we have learned in order to survive in organizations. But letting go is not the hardest lesson to learn for many.
Perhaps a more damnable habit to break is that of justification.
Justification is the hard-earned ability to defend your position in the face of withering opposition. It brooks no alternate view, nor does it easily accommodate modifications to its core or demarcated essential truth. The power of justification is that it makes ideas unassailable (especially when carried out by a master or mistress of the art.) The only problem with justification is that as a practice it allows no room for the new, the additive, or the tangential. Justification creates cul-de-sacs in which innovation goes to die.
Learning how to combat holding onto an idea too tightly and justifying an idea to the point of lunacy are essential practices. Which leads us to the role of exactly that in innovation – practicing what we have learned.
Practice makes permanent – practice with feedback makes perfect
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
- Douglas Adams
Most have heard of that old aphorism, “practice makes perfect.” My experience, and the firm word of a former business associate, Tom Doyle, is that practice does not make perfect, “practice makes permanent; only practice with feedback makes perfect.”
In order to become better at the art and substance of innovation it is necessary to work on it. In working on this skill set it is also critical to receive feedback and coaching. The application of observational assessment and associated feedback to an innovator enables them to see their mental models reflected in the words of others as well as the way a life time of habits influences how they not only see the world, but seek to change it in the present.
Having a subject matter expert observe and provide feedback, even if they are not a practiced innovator, may be of great benefit to those seeking to innovate. The critical eye is an essential ingredient in improvement. To borrow another Gladwell-popularized concept, that of the maven – a trusted specialist or subject matter expert connected to other like-minded practitioners across a community – it is a given that mavens make the best mentors. Their deep expertise, and the authority with which they can observe, mean that the feedback that they provide can not only provide clear opportunities for growth but may also provide ways to create a step-change in our approach to innovation and the challenges at hand.
After all, while it has been said that those who can – do, and that those who cannot – teach, it is preferable to think on Seneca:
While we teach, we learn.
Innovation Is Not Clockwork – The Challenges of Innovation Systems
February 19, 2010 by Andrew (Drew) · Leave a Comment
A system is a network of interdependent components that work together to try to accomplish the aim of the system. A system must have an aim. Without the aim, there is no system.
- W. Edward Deming
Everything is connected so beware the tragedy of the commons
Previously we addressed the need to create innovation processes that bear the risk of innovation. This boils down to two aphorisms, “if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen” and “it is okay to make mistakes as long as you learn from them.” Not earth-shaking concepts, certainly, but creating an environment within existing business systems that might allow practicing that behavior is a true challenge.
Businesses are complex systems. They are not clockwork mechanisms. They contain myriad subsystems each of which is responsible for producing value through a series of interdependent relationships. This doesn’t even consider the ecosystem within which the business resides; such as, the external competitive market, supply chain and customer segments. The common mistake when attempting to build innovation practices within an enterprise is to “ring-fence” the practice within a functional domain. Relegating innovation to Research & Development or Product Development may provide it with a home but does not necessarily mean it will flourish. This misunderstanding, that innovation is not connected to anything else, almost always backfires as other functional subsystems respond in unanticipated ways.
Ignoring the interconnections between organizational subsystems causes havoc when innovation is demanded of all areas of the business, instead of one function, and the competition for resources becomes fierce. The heart of this conflict is called, “the tragedy of the commons” and it occurs when the subsystems in an organization are placed in a competitive relationship with each other and are forced to act in ways that are destructive to the organization overall. The current push for “innovation everywhere” is a pattern that is reinforcing this dilemma.
For example, without establishing strategic priorities, a consumer products firm I worked with decided that all departments without failure were going to improve their processes. The number of performance improvement projects proliferated tenfold overnight. As a result, project resources were spread so thin nothing was accomplished, but the effort was not canceled until six months had been burned. The result was “initiative fatigue”, a loss of support for organizational leadership, and a drop in market performance. The very opposite of what was desired.
Don’t control the players – change the rules
Is the system going to flatten you out and deny you your humanity, or are you going to be able to make use of the system to the attainment of human purposes?
- Joseph Campbell
If we cannot change the system via simple choices how can we create a better environment for innovation within our organizations? Rather than telling people what to do, guide their behavior by changing business rules within existing business systems that drive the behavior you wish to see.
In his great book, Predictably Irrational, behavioral economist Dan Ariely explores how expectations, emotions, social norms, and other embedded social and psychological forces influence our behavior. One great insight he presents is the way in which the human brain is wired to adopt certain patterns of behavior based on first impressions and decisions. These impressions are imprinted on our brains and govern our approach to similar circumstances. We have “anchored” our experience and even in the face of evidence may act against our own interests because of its influence in our thinking. I also explored this process, which is directly related to priming, in a previous post.
To change this imprinted pattern of thinking it is necessary to change the rules. Luxury goods manufacturers understand this explicitly, as Ariely explains. He notes the case of black pearls which when first introduced to market were a flop. They were gun-metal grey and looked like oversize ball bearings. It took James Assael, an Italian diamond and pearl dealer, to change the rules. He made a deal with Harry Winston to display them in the window of his 5th Avenue jewelry store in Manhattan surrounded by other precious gems. Assael also placed full page advertisements in glossy magazines to promote this new luxury item. Suddenly, black pearls were all the rage. Why? In order to make someone want something he changed the rules and made it scarce. DeBeers has done this for years with diamonds, too.
It is much more effective to change the rules of the game so that it is to most people’s advantage to make choices that are good for the whole system of innovation. What current rules of innovation could you invert, subvert or otherwise transform to create the behavior you’re looking for in your organization?
Foresight always wins and preparation trumps reaction
Everything affects everything else in one way or another. Whether you are aware of that or not does not change the fact that this is what is happening.
- John Woods
Innovative solutions to problems affecting complex systems take time to design, develop, test and implement. If we wait until the problem develops before applying our resources to addressing its root cause, we may be too late to take meaningful action. In the previous post on processes I addressed the notion of anticipatory behavior. That kind of foresight applied to present need can be a powerful tool for ongoing successful innovation.
Too many organizations pull the innovation trigger when faced with a crisis. Be it a market crisis or, more commonly, a product crisis the circumstances reinforce reactive behavior. If not outright panic, this scenario does not foster the use of structured and reasoned thinking to guide decision-making. Instead rapid fire solutions to address the changing conditions on the ground don’t solve the problem in the market and they may make the effects of the problem worse.
Across an organization’s innovation systems, looking ahead to anticipate problems is key. In the current pharmaceutical marketplace, many larger firms were faced with greatly diminished drug development pipelines yet they carry large commercialization operations. Blockbuster drugs are increasingly few and far between. With this realization, the action that most firms have taken is to re-double their development efforts in R&D as well as to identify as many smaller firms with potential marketable drugs as possible to acquire. What if their leadership teams had decided that, rather than reinforce their old business model (shoot for the blockbuster), they were going to anticipate changing market conditions and transform their companies from drug manufacturers to providers of comprehensive health services or another alternative business model. Would they not be better off heading off problems before they disrupt their market (and cash flow) entirely?
Why no great change? Because change is often painful, awkward and a dreadful inconvenience.
Don’t be fooled by system cycles – it’s not the climate it’s the weather
As human beings we love stability. Many of us are simply unable to recognize cyclical patterns around us, especially when they take years to unfold. The boom/bust cycle in the US economy is one such pattern which seems to elude many. This cycle seems to be on a fairly regular 20 year cycle and yet, during the peak (just prior to the bust) many people only see the positive “upside,” regardless of the Cassandras crying in the wilderness about the impending doom. And then the inevitable happens – the dip, slip, or worse yet, crash.
On the other side, when at the bottom of an economic recession, many struggle to see positive signs that economic systems might manifest. Their pessimism is only countered when they feel the positive impacts of the expanding economy directly. This cycle is present all around is. When job categories are oversupplied or undersupplied the negative feedback loops that cause people to go into a particular career usually lag the changing market needs. It’s also present in the climate. With recent record snows on the East Coast of the USA many were heralding the end of global warming. However, it is not case. The weather system is not representative of the climate system, it is a subsystem, and its cycle-time can be measured in months, weeks and days. The climate system is measured in decades, centuries and millennia.
As with the economy, the best time to capture the market is when everyone is contracting. When the present hoopla about “innovation everywhere” dies down those organizations that have embedded innovation into their business systems will find the opportunities ripe for capitalizing on others’ short-term thinking and rapidly fading memories.
Working The Processes of Innovation – Learning to Love & Live Failure
February 12, 2010 by Andrew (Drew) · 1 Comment
Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently.
- Henry Ford
Creating A Structure To Support Things Not Yet Seen
The crucial variable in the process of turning knowledge into value is creativity.
- John Kao
To talk about innovation and processes in the same breath seems oxymoronic. While most organizations are designed to take inputs and convert them through a series of conversion efforts into products or services for sale, they are singularly ill-prepared to bring new things to market. Why?
Existing organizations apply functional expertise in the form of departments like; Design, Product Development, Sourcing, Manufacturing, Marketing, Sales, Customer Support, HR, IT, and Finance, etc. They take known inputs, apply existing business processes for conversion into value, and produce recognizable outputs. Where’s the point of inflection? Where is are the processes that foster innovation? The whole enterprise is an inherently stable system designed to retain that stability.
To create innovation there must be a structure that can support the exploration, the risk-taking, the resource expenditure without direct monetary return. A structure that supports innovation must capture and support an organization’s ability to reach beyond what it produces in the present to what it might produce for the future. It demands a structure that can seek and use unknown resources, to build the unknown for unknown customers (or at least meet current customers’ unknown needs!)
The challenge is to reach into that unknown and pull some sense of meaning into the present. To use questioning and learning to first understand, then conceive, then sketch, then model, then prototype an innovation into existence. Part and parcel of that process is to be resilient enough to survive the inevitable hazards of the associated failure.
A Framework For Failure
Half the failures in life arise from pulling in one’s horse as he is leaping.
- August Hare
When planning for innovation how we create space for and manage risk (and the possibility of failure) is a primary factor in long-term success. Creating an organizational framework that not only can accept that risk is a primary ingredient in development of the truly new, but one that also has the operational flexibility and resilience to survive the unanticipated failure, is crucial. Yes, the desire to create more first-time successes is strong and should be recognized and valued. But nothing in innovation is ever perfect. Chaos and failure must be expected regardless of whether or not their extent might be anticipated.
A basic process model for innovation might be the following:
At each step there are a series of actions that happen, some sequential and some parallel, but all requiring a vigilance in terms of risk. The paramount question used throughout this process is not framed by “What” or “How” or “How much” but by “Why?” The inquiry contained within “Why?” demands that we constantly test our thinking through every step in the process of innovation. It helps us look beyond the expected and the commonly understood data embodied in the embedded business rules, behavioral norms and measures of our success. This inquiry generates awareness of the wider system of interdependent elements around a design challenge. It also gives us comfort in that it helps us frame possible responses to potential failures. It inoculates us against the pain of failure, keeping us strong for the next attempt.
Beyond High Reliability Organizations
One very important aspect of motivation is the willingness to stop and to look at things that no one else has bothered to look at. This simple process of focusing on things that are normally taken for granted is a powerful source of creativity…
- Edward de Bono
One of the off-shoots of social psychology and organization theory explores the concept of “sense-making”. One of pioneers in this area is Karl Weick. He noted that people try to make sense of organizations, and organizations themselves try to make sense of their environment. They are both navigating an ever-changing situation. What does this mean for innovation processes? Weick asks us to focus our attention on questions of ambiguity and uncertainty in this sense-making. Sense-making is the process of creating situational awareness and understanding in situations of high complexity or uncertainty in order to make decisions. This is a process of inquiry and seeking understanding in a dynamically changing environment. In terms of innovation the environment is the formed by the process of creating something new.
Moving from situational awareness in individuals, to shared awareness and understanding, to collaborative decision-making is a socio-cognitive activity. This approach considers that the individual’s cognitive activities are directly impacted by the social nature of the exchange and vice versa. This is, in a form, a process of co-creation. And the culmination of that sense-making process is one that Weick was also one of the co-developers of, the concept of the “high reliability organizations”. (Others involved in this development were, Karlene H. Roberts, Herbert Simon, and James March.) As noted in Wikipedia.org, “A High Reliability Organization (HRO) is an organization that has succeeded in avoiding catastrophes in an environment where normal accidents can be expected due to risk factors and complexity.” In short is an organization that can be best described as resilient in the extreme.
Organizations that must be successful all of the time continually reinvent themselves. For example, an aircraft carrier uses its functional units slightly differently depending on whether they are on a humanitarian mission, a search and rescue mission, or are engaged in night flight operations training. The same can said for an organization that delivers robust innovations time and time again. They may in fact be termed “highly reliable innovation organization”. They continually reinvent themselves. They build flexible systems that marshal their resources, via their innovation processes, to capitalize on opportunities as they arise. They take great risks, fail often, and yet they endure.
Life is a process of becoming, a combination of states we have to go through. Where people fail is that they wish to elect a state and remain in it. This is a kind of death.
- Anaïs Nin
Afterlife: An Essential Guide To Design For Disassembly, by Alex Diener – Core77
February 1, 2010 by Andrew (Drew) · Leave a Comment
What if we take another run at the idea that everything has a life beyond its immediate life? What if we decided that things must be reparable, recoverable, recyclable, re-purpose-able? How different would then be our innovation and design approaches? Our disposable society must be disassembled.
Afterlife: An Essential Guide To Design For Disassembly, by Alex Diener – Core77.
Innovation Economies & The Benefit Of Creative Destruction
January 29, 2010 by Andrew (Drew) · Leave a Comment
…Business is not a sporting event. Victory for one company doesn’t mean defeat for everyone else.
- James Surowiecki
Innovation As An Economic Mover And Shaker
Today innovation sits at the heart of economic value creation. If the 1980’s were all about productivity, the 1990’s were about quality, and the 2000’s about globalization, the current decade will most likely be about the capacity of organization to harness the controlled chaos inherent in innovation to create value. With the acceleration of globalization process, innovation is more and more seen as the appropriate tool to create business value. We recognize that innovation within an enterprise occurs in a framework of economic production and diffusion.
That framework is governed by (Porter’s) five major forces:
1. Customers Buying Power. Towards them must be oriented all the efforts of the firm, particularly concerning modifications of switching costs, manufacturing processes, or the positioning of the products and services. Innovation in the way the customer sees your industry or product may directly shift the balance of their buying power. Consider the commoditization of the flat panel TV industry as one area in which that balance has shifted in the space of a couple of years.
2. Suppliers Bargaining Power. Due to their huge power of negotiation, especially when they may be sole supplier in an innovative new industry sector, they are able to use their influence to shift supply chain economies causing disruption.
3. Threat of Substitute Products. Firms must pay attention to the threat of substitutes, and to the fact that followers do not have to support the R&D costs in the production process, and thus are able to implement the innovative service or product at a lower cost.
4. Threat of New Entrants. Anticipating and managing if necessary the different entry and exit barriers should be one of the major preoccupations of the firms operating on the market.
5. Intensity of Industry Competition. Rivalry among competitors has numerous consequences on the level of activity, as well as on the value chain, by increasing or lowering one or several structural elements of the market. Innovation may enable an enterprise to insulate from direct competition due to a technological advance for example.
This microcosm in which a firm survives requires constant surveillance and response as it continuously shifts and changes. What makes an awareness of these forces more important is that the timescale governing observation and impact has shifted; due to marketplace innovations the pace of change and rate of response has accelerated. The undercurrent at work here is that it is not enough to be aware of the environment in which innovation occurs; the effectiveness of the implementation of an innovation is critical. That is what drives economic growth.
It’s Not What You Know – It’s What You Do With What You Know
As a direct response to the neoclassical economics-fostered reasonable allocation of scarce resources, innovation economics focuses on spurring economic actors (the individual, the organization or firm, industries, cities, and even entire nations) to create value through increased productivity and implemented innovation. Innovation is a mighty lever for change and value creation. It disrupts existing systems and plays havoc with what we think we know, creating new paths for the exchange of goods, services but, more importantly, new ideas. It also provokes and promotes growth through expenditure.
Entrepreneurial profit is the expression of the value of what the entrepreneur contributes to production.
- Joseph Schumpeter
As new products are developed, new materials requiring new sourcing capabilities may be required. This creates employment opportunities, which impacts local communities. If those products become viable in the market, a whole microcosm of support is required to support the new endeavor. In the service sector, innovation practices create opportunities through the elimination of wasted time, freeing resources to be applied to other more fruitful activities. All of which is in support of value creation. Yet in order to achieve these ends innovators must forcing critical decisions in their organizations – what do we need to stop doing to make this innovation a reality? Without answering that question, innovation may become stuck.
To Make Something New You Might Need To Blow Something Up
In innovation economics, innovation lies at the center of value creation. Innovation economists recognize that innovation and productivity growth take place in the context of institutions. Indeed, it is the “social technologies” of institutions, culture, norms, laws, and networks that are so central to growth. In the eyes of conventional economists these are the elements that are too difficult to model or study. For a neoclassical economist, the focus is on the use of scarce resources to produce valuable commodities and distribute them among different people. Innovation economists view innovation as an evolutionary process in a market where firms act on imperfect information and where market failures are common.
Economic progress, in capitalist society, means turmoil.
- Joseph Schumpeter
Which leads us to one of the elder statesmen of innovation economics, Joseph Schumpeter. In his seminal work, The Theory of Economic Development (1911, 1934) Schumpeter did more than any other economist to increase the understanding of the role the entrepreneur plays in the capitalist economy. In particular, he defined the crucial role of the entrepreneur in the process of innovation and creative destruction – today it is virtually impossible to conceive of a dynamic capitalist economy in the absence of Schumpeterian entrepreneurs.
The startling thing is that Schumpeter also saw that the capability of the lone entrepreneur to significantly change the world would, over time, be supplanted by innovation through larger collaborative efforts. Schumpeter claimed that due to the application of modern techniques and modern modes of organization the innovation process would become more and more automated. Innovations would increasingly become the fruits of the organized effort of large teams. This would be done most effectively within the framework of large corporations.
Schumpeter foreshadowed, the destruction of the role of the solo inventor, and the subsequent rise of the “wisdom of the crowds” and “open innovation” before we even recognized the larger economic benefits of collaborative innovation. No matter how it is accomplished, Schumpeter clearly saw the case for the chaos and failure that innovation creates.
In fact, successful innovation is normally a source of temporary market power, eroding the profits and position of old firms (disrupting if not destroying their viability), yet ultimately each innovation succumbs to the pressure of new creations being commercialized by competing entrants. The creative destruction resulting from innovation practices is a powerful economic driver because it explains many of the dynamics of industrial change. The ongoing, dynamic transition from a competitive to a monopolistic market and back again, speaks to the impact of innovation economies.
Twitter: DrewCM
- RT @TalentCulture: Take Your #Business to the Next Level http://su.pr/2IkpFT #management #corporateculture
- RT @wired: Happy 44th birthday, Star Trek! - http://bit.ly/cOmliD
- @MeghanMBiro Thanks for the kind RT!
- @MeghanMBiro Hey, great news that you'll be at #SOBCon - looking forward to seeing you, too!
- @ralph_ohr Thanks for the RT! Hope you're doing well.