Technology and Organizations

The admonition “don’t do math in public” clearly doesn’t apply to modern R&D. While the Lockheed Skunkworks and Apple are known for their secrecy, many organizations now open up their process so that we can all participate. This is more than “open innovation.” This is public, interactive, innovation.

IDEO, Google, PARC, Yahoo! have/had public websites for their “labs”:

• IDEO Labs: “… is a place where we can show bits of what we’re working on, talk about prototyping, and share our excitement over the tools that help us create.”
• Google Labs: “Explore Google’s technology playground”
• PARC Living Laboratory: “In the spirit of open innovation, this is one of the places where PARC scientists and engineers share their prototype web-based services, alpha-stage software downloads, proof-of-concept for various competencies, and collaborative development programs. These are available free to the public for trial and feedback; in turn, we hope to draw on the diverse perspectives the online community will share. We do not currently provide access to inactive projects (e.g., Map Viewer) here.”
• Yahoo! Next: (defunct?) “… is a showcase of some of Yahoo!’s newest and upcoming projects. It is essentially an incubation ground for future Yahoo! technologies in their beta testing phase, and a chance for the Yahoo! community to interact and have a say on how upcoming products are designed and fine tuned. Each prototype can be discussed in its own individual Yahoo! Next forum. The Yahoo! Next website is currently offline for redevelopment” (from Wikipedia.)

These sites provide outsiders with early access to interesting work, and early feedback from enthusiastic followers. To the extent that we are becoming a sharing/collaborative community, these organizations can gain great value and we can participate in the process.

But, how do you make the choice of openness? How do you decide what to be open with and what to keep secret? There is a full range of possibilities (the range of formal arrangements is nicely covered in When is Virtual Virtuous, by Hank Chesbrough and David Teece). They highlight the issues of whether or not the innovation exists, or must be invented; and whether the innovation will be autonomous or systemic to the organization’s goals and processes. Note: you don’t see Google open sourcing their algorithms.

SAP Labs shows a middle ground. They appear to have standard R&D, but with a local and co-innovation flavor:

“The SAP Labs Network leverages SAP’s rich diversity and technical and business expertise to deliver the best software solutions and services in the IT industry.

Located in high-tech centers across the globe, the SAP Labs Network helps SAP engage the local ecosystems and enable co-innovation.

Seen as a local company within a seamless global network, each SAP Labs location increases SAP’s adaptability and agility to rapidly address changing markets and meet evolving customer needs.” (Thanks, @nilofer for the example.)

Here’s a twist: Each of the above public examples have an organization taking the lead and gaining its own benefit. What if the users took the lead? We see this with the free and open source software collaborations. What about more physical innovations, or cases where the it’s not a joint project, but many people still contribute? I have a couple of examples and will do a follow up post — but it would be wonderful if you could share any examples you have. These can be self-organizing (like much of the open source software), facilitated by membership enthusiast organizations, or….

I wish I knew more. Carol Bartz, new CEO of Yahoo!, today announced her plans for the expected reorganization. Whenever I read of a reorg, I’m interested in seeing how much of the discussion focuses on moving the boxes in the org chart – and the people in those boxes — and how much focuses on the company’s policies, procedures, technology, strategy, etc. As I teach in my org design course, “You can’t change just one thing” – (Skwish toy example)

Neither can you change everything all at once. Better to take small bites (ok, still a big bite in this case), see how it’s working (e.g., track, look for evidence), and make adjustments or renegotiations as needed.

In the full memo to the employees (thanks CNET and Steven Shankland) she says,

I know you guys have reorg fatigue. Hang in there–our intention is to leave this structure in place for two to four years. We’ll continue to make adjustments as needed, but we expect this core structure to stay put.

I’m loving the dynamic.

I also love that in the memo she touches on the full organizational design, including their own technology infrastructure — not just that which is customer facing:

Service Engineering & Operations: This new team is responsible for delivering common technology services at scale, including application management and infrastructure. No matter how cool our products are, the customer’s experience won’t be great unless our applications consistently deliver. Note that we’re bringing Service Engineering together as one group because these engineers bring expertise that is best applied horizontally. Leading this organization is David Dibble, who joined Yahoo! in December. David’s team also will be accountable for delivering more effective corporate IT systems.

… and finally, she understands how to manage the whitespace — that part of the organization chart that isn’t between the lines:

Also, as you know, no organizational structure is a substitute for collaboration, communication and trust. We’ll all need to evolve our behavior a bit–as teams and as individuals–to make this structure work the way it’s designed.

I wish them all the best.  And, yes, I do love purple….