Dan and Chip Heath, authors of Made to Stick, have a new book “to help you change things,” Switch. They build off University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s The Happiness Hypothesis with an analogy based on an elephant (our emotional side) and the elephant’s rider (our rational side). The rider on top tries to direct the elephant, but a 6-ton elephant can go wherever it wants. People may rationally want to change, but their emotions, habits, and instincts may have control. They’ve filled the book with clear examples (that stick!) and extend the elephant/rider analogy to note that while we can direct the rider and motivate the elephant, we also need to “shape the path” the rider and elephant follow by adjusting situations to provide clarity around the change. This acknowledgment of the need to manage all three factors at once is a demonstration of their systems savvy — their ability to weave together three separate strands to create a stronger and more effective outcome.
I generally talk about systems savvy in terms of technology tools, organization practice, and basic human attributes. Systems savvy is the vision to acknowledge options across each of a situation’s technology, organization, and people — and the wisdom to weave them together into new and powerful outcomes. Switch doesn’t speak to the general capability of systems savvy in these terms, but the Heath brothers provide us with many examples of people who are successful at influencing change because they have found a way to do this essential weaving. They provide us with a deeper understanding of how change is perceived and the related human motivations.
We’re building a powerful library: Switch helps us understand the people strand while the previously reviewed IT Savvy ties together technology and organizational practice. Do you have other suggestions for systems savvy reading?
Gibson and Gibbs give us a summary of the innovation activities needed by innovation teams. They note:
The ability of teams to innovate depends on how well they generate, import, share, interpret, and apply technological and market knowledge, particularly of local markets, economies, and customers. That knowledge is a combination of information, experience, context, interpretation, and reflection (Davenport, De Long, and Beers, 1998). It must be openly shared across contexts through relationships and networks, and there must be confidence in the value of that knowledge for achieving the objectives of the collaboration (Kanter, 1988). Once these requirements have been met, innovation involves dissemination and application of the knowledge, including combining and integrating it to develop novel insights, solutions, processes, or products (Obstfeld, 2005).
Applying the above to an innovation infrastructure suggests that we need to apply systems savvy and weave together the technology, organizational practice, and human motivations. We need systems that allow for the wide part of the innovation funnel: a wide and diverse set of information ideas. At the same time, we need systems that then allow the innovation project to be effectively and efficiently managed. I suspect that a project dashboard (next post) that shows both current project status and has a variety of news and discussion streams is one way to both keep project goals in mind and support the wider ideation activities.
Organizational Activities:
Robert Brands (with Martin Kleinman) recently released Robert’s Rules of Innovation: A 10-Step Program for Corporate Survival. I’ve been following Robert (here and here) for a while. Now I have a one-stop opportunity for his insights. Speaking at the organization level (with specifics also related to teams), he notes the following as “the imperatives to deliver profitable growth through innovation”:
Robert’s Rules of Innovation helps you develop both energy and structure around organizational innovation activities. The presentation provides a broad set of examples: from how to create an innovation culture to a clear discussion of intellectual property issues. I was especially happy to see a discussion around the evidenced based management of innovation:
Observation, measurement, and tracking of NPD results are essential to optimal ROI. Create your baselines first, with initial observations and measurements. Then capture the time to each gate, the time spent inside each gate, and so on. (p. 36)
Building on the idea of a dashboard within our innovation infrastructure, we need ways to track our experiments. Brands asks, “Do you have a set of metrics to serve as an innovation dashboard and track your innovation activities?” (p. 43). These metrics may be general (applicable to all innovation efforts — participate in the Innovation Coach survey here), or they may be specific to the particular effort. We also have to be aware that how we expect an innovation to play out may not be what happens in the wild — thus our observations need to be openended.
Have you had success, or even surprise, in tracking an innovation? What did you do that put you in a position for effective tracking? Do you know of any summaries of surprising innovation outcomes? Comments and links appreciated below.
What critical innovation activities must be supported by an innovation infrastructure? Short answer is that innovation infrastructure must keep the project’s top goals… top of mind, through…. TOP Management. Whether you’re working with a group of enthusiasts or a formal network of company partners, keeping the team moving in the same direction is key. (I’ll take on the longer answer in Part 2.)
Wednesday I have the privilege of speaking at a workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation. The workshop’s goal is to develop projects related to reducing time and cost overruns in large innovation systems (space, aviation, etc.). The audience includes engineers, systems designers, and academics from across engineering, economics, and organization science. My 15 minutes of fame will be focused on the role of innovation infrastructure — built with technology support and organizational practice — to help make large efforts feel small. This post is my trial run.
I went into the project thinking about how, whether, the needs of community-based innovations were different than those of large formal projects. My conclusion is that even though the community/enthusiast-based projects may be smaller in terms of investment, they are likely to be larger in terms of perspective. This breadth is both a benefit and a burden.
Breadth is a benefit in that innovation needs breadth to help us find new ways to put together solutions. Breadth is a burden in that our focus must be narrow to succeed. Informal communities of enthusiasts are likely to have more varied goals and less oversight to keep them on a particular path.
NASA’s Mark Moore helped me understand the innovation importance of focus on top goals. I had contacted Mark (thanks Bob!) as he was the lead on NASA’s Puffin single-person vertical take-off and landing project. The Puffin project is a great innovation example as it moved quickly and so far is tracking on its design goals. Contrast this with the many delays we see in larger space and aviation projects.
Mark’s says it is critical to keep the top goals on the table throughout the project. The tension here is that an innovation project is likely to be made up of experts from a variety of different areas. (Recall that breadth is good for innovation… but also recall that breadth means people may bring differing goals to the project.) Each area of engineering wants to do its best, though what the project may need is trade-offs across the best possible outcomes. Mark’s phrase: “Every optimal aircraft is filled with non-optimal tradeoffs.”
Both formal and informal innovation projects need to focus on their top goals:
..don’t confuse collaborative innovation with a headless organization. Leadership still plays a critical role in mobilizing and aligning any organization. But the role of the leader is not to create the innovation but to create the environment in which it will thrive (p. 17, The Innovation Zone).
People need to understand the ultimate design goals and how the innovation as a whole must support those goals.
How can TOP Management support our ability to keep top goals, top of mind? TOP Management is the intertwining of technology, organizational practice, and people. In the Puffin case there was an understanding of the human desire to optimize around one’s area of expertise -- and how to manage that tendency via particular practices and simple technologies:
We did not use any advanced collaboration tools, but simply email and WebEx conferencing. The key to our successful collaboration was to keep a small core team that had very clear objectives, with the detailed discipline efforts tied together by a top-down systems analysis understanding of the design problem.
While the O and the P of TOP management were highlights of Puffin’s success, I expect that technology could play a stronger role, especially in larger projects. Project communications and workspaces can be designed to highlight the top goals both formally and informally (for no clear reason I keep thinking of Google’s changing logos). Technology could also support the organizational practice of evaluating trade-offs vis a vis the top goals. As ideas role in, the “crowd” can give electronic thumbs up or down similar to the voting possible in some innovation platforms (e.g., Spigit), “liking” on Facebook, or Digg. Puffin was a small project and so I doubt if hardwiring practice would have added much, but for larger projects hardwiring the systems focus on the top goals may be necessary to keep goals from diffusing as you move away from top leadership.
Key to innovation infrastructure is the development, focus, and support of overarching system goals.
“First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth” (John F. Kennedy). This was a clear goal statement and ran counter to what many of his advisers thought was prudent (audio track from a meeting where the issues are debated). Many of the advisers wanted to take a building block approach. They wanted to know more about things like the the surface of the moon (would the lander sink) and the implications of weightlessness. Kennedy, however, had a better understanding of political and human needs. You need a clear goal and a clear metric of success. We went to the moon, on time.
What’s the best support system for open, collaborative innovation? There are sites to help you find collaborators (e.g., Build It with Me) and there are sites focused on collaboration around specific areas of interest (e.g., DIY Drones, Local Motors, & AeroInnovate). Should you add collaboration to community of interest pages or should projects build their own collaboration spaces (perhaps with Google Sites, Huddle, or within the enterprise, Brainstorm)? These are the questions my Managing Technology & Innovation students will be addressing in their Spring term (focusing on Electric Aircraft collaborations). But first, I’m going to spend some posts following my own advice: doing an audit.
The tools of factory production, from electronics assembly to 3-D printing, are now available to individuals, in batches as small as a single unit. Anybody with an idea and a little expertise can set assembly lines in China into motion with nothing more than some keystrokes on their laptop. A few days later, a prototype will be at their door, and once it all checks out, they can push a few more buttons and be in full production, making hundreds, thousands, or more. They can become a virtual micro-factory, able to design and sell goods without any infrastructure or even inventory; products can be assembled and drop-shipped by contractors who serve hundreds of such customers simultaneously.
Next up: What activities does an open innovation infrastructure need to support? Hint: I’ll be building from Gibson & Gibb’s discussion around innovation teams. Thanks in advance for comments that suggest sources outlining the activities that companies, individuals, and teams need to be supported by an innovation infrastructure and/or tools that support these activities. Personal favorites or ones to avoid especially appreciated. For some background, check out Open Innovators and their list of platforms.
Recently I had lunch with Godfrey Mungal, Dean of Santa Clara University’s Engineering School. We were talking about the benefits of MBA students and engineering students working together on innovation projects. Eventually the conversation turned to aviation and my thoughts about how our students could play a supporting role for the Experimental Aircraft Association and the nascent electric aircraft industry. Much to my surprise, Godfrey took me for a walk — to show that Santa Clara University already had a rich history of aviation innovation.
While thoughtful innovators understand that success is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration — we cannot deny that inspiration is a motivator. Joining with other enthusiasts or just seeing a personal connection to a historic innovation makes success seem more of a possibility, and thus we can maintain or increase our own motivation. Take a walk and see what connections to innovation are just around the corner.
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers is building an endowment for the John Joseph Montgomery Gold Medal for Distinguished Innovation in Aeronautics. To learn more: pdf.
My goal is to share observations about the perceptions and use of technology in organizations. My foremost audience is my students, but I hope colleagues and clients will find it interesting as well. I take a broad view of technology -- sometimes as broad as the Greek root implies. Terri L. Griffith, Ph.D.
