Three Amazing Reports On The State Of Innovation - Part II
Table of contents for State of Innovation
- Three Amazing Reports On The State Of Innovation - Part I
- Three Amazing Reports On The State Of Innovation - Part II
In our first installment, the Boston Consultancy Group identified innovation trends via a survey of over 2400 senior level executives. In this installment, Booz-Allen-Hamilton studies the world’s largest R&D investors to determine what innovation strategies succeed.
Sphere: Related Content7 Levels Of Change (Part 2 of 9) - Level 1: Effectiveness
Table of contents for 7 Levels Of Change
- The 7 Levels Of Change - Introduction (Part 1 of 9)
- 7 Levels Of Change (Part 2 of 9) - Level 1: Effectiveness
- 7 Levels Of Change (Part 3 of 9) - Level 2: Efficiency
- 7 Levels Of Change (Part 4 of 9) - Level 3: Improving
- 7 Levels Of Change (Part 5 of 9) - Level 4: Cutting
- 7 Levels Of Change (Part 6 of 9) - Level 5: Copying
- 7 Levels Of Change (Part 7 of 9) - Level 6: Doing Things No One Else Is Doing
- 7 Levels Of Change (Part 8 of 9) - Level 7: Doing Things That Can’t Be Done
- 7 Levels Of Change (Part 9 of 9) - Bringing It All Together
The second in a nine-part series on Rolf Smith’s 7 Levels of Change, I introduce the first level of change - Effectiveness (Doing The Right Things).
Sphere: Related ContentAre You Tired Of Producing Ineffective Results?
Are you frustrated that your attempts at innovation don’t make a difference?
Do you apply creativity in areas that don’t yield results?
Then apply it in one of the areas that makes the most difference - your business model.
Sphere: Related Content7-Step Guide To Crushing Innovation In Its Tracks
Is your organization just too damned innovative? Do you suffer from exquisitely sustained product lines, great branding, and excessive profits? Do your people bear the burden of creativity, happiness, and motivation? Do your customers endure the drudgery of a one-of-a-kind experience? Do your collaborative partners curse your name as they share in your great success? These simple steps will help you kill innovation more effectively than a bludgeon to the head.
Sphere: Related ContentPrototyping Your Way To Innovation
While reading my books on IDEO I am constantly reminded of how important prototyping is to innovation process. Prototyping takes on a far more general meaning in a culture of innovation. It doesn’t refer only to the first draft of a new product - it could be anything from a new process to a new philosophy.
In my line of work the word ’strawman’ has a similar meaning but carries a bit of a more negative connotation. A strawman is something to be ‘knocked down,’ something to be beaten up and replaced with a better version. A prototype is better than that - a concept that represents the best current understanding of the task at hand, something to go forward with and tweak as we go along. One of my challenges moving forward is to replace the concept of ’strawman’ with the concept of ‘prototype.’
Sphere: Related ContentTwo Vastly Opposing Views on Brainstorming, Pt. III
IDEO loves brainstorming. Doblin hates brainstorming. Who is right? Who is the most wrong? Let’s start smacking them together and see what ends up on the floor.
Sphere: Related ContentTwo Vastly Opposing Views on Brainstorming, Pt. II
In my first installment I discussed IDEO’s approach to brainstorming and how they incorporate it into their innovation processes. Now let’s take a look at someone who thinks brainstorming is a waste of time.
Larry Keeley of Doblin is a well-known innovation educator and consultant. Doblin has researched innovation extensively and discovered a great deal about what does and doesn’t work. Keeley’s unique perspective evolved over 20 years of field experience and forms the basis for Doblin’s innovation strategy. His pragmatic philosophy is reflected in Doblin’s Ten Types of Innovation. He believes that rather than waste time and effort on producing ideas that most likely have no value, people should focus their creativity on adapting the strategies proven elsewhere and combining their Ten Types in creative ways. A good overview of his philosophy can be found in this video (90 minutes):
Keeley believes in innovation effectiveness, which he now considers an emerging science until itself. His firm has gobs and gobs of research data on why innovation fails. At about the 15 minute mark of the video he launches into a dry, witty diatribe against brainstorming - which he portrays as a process in which management generates tons of ideas which never are put into action. He later says that brainstorming is ‘dangerous’ and produces far too many useless ideas. His data suggests that innovation fails (over 95 percent of the time) because people don’t do the most simple things - copy what the industry leaders are doing, and focus their creative efforts on the things that matter:
- Make money in a novel way
- Connect to the rest of the world
- Create lots of beneficial alliances with other companies
- Make a spiffy, memorable brand
- Focus on customer experience
Is there a place in Keeley’s model for novel ideas? Not really. Part of this is born from paranoia - the risk associated with implementing novel ideas, and the fact that the market punishes failure. He cites evidence that successful companies focus 98 percent of their effort on sustaining their existing products and services. Instead of generating tons of ideas for new stuff, Keeley recommends that upper level management focus on one or two ideas that combine the Ten Types in novel ways, then shepherd the ideas to fruition. Doing this, Keeley claims an effectiveness success rate of 35-70 percent. Thus Keeley’s approach uses extremely high-level strategic concepts to create a new perspective on what constitutes ‘doing things right,’ and as such should be a fundamental component of every business endeavor.
In my final installment I will smack the two opposing views together and see what breaks.
Sphere: Related ContentTwo Vastly Opposing Views on Brainstorming, Pt. I
To become a better innovator I try to assimilate and integrate different points of view on innovation and the creative process. One of the traditional cogs of innovation is the practice of brainstorming, the group ideation technique invented by Alex Osborne in the 50s. Contrary to what you might think, brainstorming is a well-defined process with specific rules and procedures. The goal of brainstorming is not to generate ideas - it’s to generate NOVEL ideas, using thinking tools that force you to change perspective and collaborate.
I recently found two vastly opposing views on brainstorming from two very respected sources - each forming the basis of a unique creative philosophy. I find their views illuminating, as it helps focus on what makes brainstorming work, and what makes it fail.
On the pro side of brainstorming is IDEO, the nationally reknowned design group. Brainstorming is integral to the IDEO way - “the idea engine of IDEO’s culture.” In the book The Art of Innovation, there is an entire chapter devoted to IDEO’s brainstorming philosophy. A 60-90 minute brainstorming session jumpstarts every project. I found a couple of notable things in their approach:
- They often don’t begin a session until the team researches the problem at hand. Field investigations and fact finding precede ideation. This serves two purposes - better problem understanding, and better quantity/quality of ideas.
- They cover the walls and tables with paper and include toys to amuse and cheap materials to make rough prototypes.
Other than that they conduct fairly tradition ‘Osbornian’ sessions. The sessions are remarkably short and focused, probably due to the field work, and springboard them directly into the rapid prototyping phase. Their tips include:
- Focus on a well-honed problem statement
- Defer judgement (a component of all effective brainstorming sessions)
- Number your ideas
- Build and jump - transition to other focus areas when discussion tapers off
- Prepare the space for lots of ideas
- Warm-up groups that aren’t used to the process
- Use lots of visuals - mindmaps, diagrams, etc
They also discuss several ways to effectively kill brainstorming sessions:
- Letting the boss set boundaries - eliminates wild ideas
- Taking turns speaking
- Using only ‘experts’
- Doing it off-site
- Making it too serious
- Taking notes instead of giving ideas
The results of their proven process are undeniable: IDEO tops out at one of Top 20 most innovative companies in the world every year. If ‘Do What Works’ is your mantra, you couldn’t find much of a better model than IDEO.
Which makes it doubly surprising that perhaps the most ardent ‘Do What Works’ disciple in the nation, Doblin Inc., hates brainstorming with a passion.
Next: why Doblin hates brainstorming.
Sphere: Related ContentProtected: SCAMPER
SCAMPER is a versatile tool that provides a systematic approach for manipulating processes, parameters, and ideas. It is a mnemonic device developed by Bob Eberle, based on the original series of questions developed by Alex Osborn, the father of brainstorming. It can generate both improvements and novel concepts.
1. Identify all processes, parameters and parts of the existing task at hand. If you have a set of ideas already generated, add them to the list.
2. For each process, parameter, part, and idea identified, conduct a SCAMPER analysis by running through as many of the questions as it takes to trigger new thinking and ideas. It may be helpful to create a matrix, with processes etc. listed in the rows and each of the SCAMPER questions listed in the columns.
SCAMPER questions:
- What can we SUBSTITUTE? Who or what else? Other ingredients? Other materials? Other process? Other power? Other place? Other approach? Other tone of voice?
- What can we COMBINE? What can we blend? An alloy? An assortment? An ensemble? Combine units? Combine purposes? Combine appeals? Combine ideas?
- What can we ADAPT? What else is like this? What other idea does this suggest? Does the past offer a parallel? What could we copy? Whom could we emulate?
- What can we MODIFY? Magnify - what to add? Minify - what to subtract? New twist? Change meaning, color, motion, sound, order, form, shape? Greater frequency? Stronger? Longer? Omit? Streamline? Split up?
- What can we PUT TO OTHER USES? Does its form, weight, or structure suggest another use? What other ways can we use it? What other uses if modified? Change context?
- What can we ELIMINATE? What can we leave out? Fewer parts? Condensed? Lower? Shorter? Lighter? Understate? How can we make less more? What can we do without?
- What can we REARRANGE/REVERSE? What can we turn upside down? How about opposites? Reverse roles? Turn tables? Interchange components? Other sequence? Change pace? Change schedule? Transpose cause and effect?
You may recognize elements in these questions from other creative thinking tools. SCAMPER acts in part as a ‘Swiss Army Knife’ for innovators, something to grab when you need one comprehensive tool.
Sphere: Related ContentProtected: Random Words
The Random Words Tool is one of the many different types of Forced Connections. Using random words is an easy, direct way to stimulate new thoughts and perspectives on a problem. It operates on the principle that everything can be connected in some way, and by determining what the connections are you come up with ideas you never would have otherwise. The process:
1. Write down your problem statement.
2. Select some random words. There are several random word generators on the internet, here and here and here and here. Or just come up with one of your own, as long as it is not connected to the problem in any way.
3. Write down words and phrases associated with that word. The associations can be direct or abstract, whatever the word makes you think of.
4. Force connections between the word associations and your problem.
EXAMPLE: The problem is ‘how might we convince a certain organization to support our project?’
The random word selected was ‘road.’ The associations for this word were:
- made of concrete or asphalt
- create a network
- freedom - can travel anywhere
- paid for with tax dollars
- share right of way with utilities etc.
- used by cars, trucks, and buses
A connection was drawn between the problem statement and ’share right of way.’ The idea was to invite the approving organization to share in the project’s capabilities, allowing them to share in the success as well. Another connection was drawn between the problem and ‘create a network.’ The idea was to show the approving organization how the projects creates a vast collaborative network of experts in many fields.
Sphere: Related Content