Unfreezing the middle, seeing a different innovating prospective

This past week we had a #innochat tweet session(www.innochat.com) around Jeffrey Phillip’s book “Relentless Innovation”( http://amzn.to/xXoHof ).

The chat was framed around a set of questions here (http://bit.ly/Awvh5E ) but basically the premise of Jeffrey’s thinking was “can it be possible to shift from business as usual (BAU) to innovation business as usual”?

He suggests that one of the most significant challenges for innovation is the fact that many firms have spent years, if not decades, creating business models and operating processes that are exceptionally efficient and effective but neglect the essential part that innovation plays.

Equally the middle manager is so focused on the delivery of short term results through effective organization and pursuing efficiencies they have little ‘slack’ within the system to learn and build innovation into it.

I would possibly argue the very people that we are expecting to manage the ‘dynamics’ within organizations, the Middle Managers, are seeking the very opposite- doing everything possible to keep it as stable and consistent as it can be.

So how can this change?

Your dominating innovation design is?

Each organization seems to favour one design approach over another when it comes to how they innovate. It favours either the more comfortable repeatable zones or is determined to push the boundaries out on its innovation activities.

We often talk about simply incremental and radical, yet we do have other choices such as a more ‘distinctive’ design or one that sets out to be ‘disruptive’.

Let me offer this for thinking through on your fits on the innovation path you want to take and ‘flag’ some areas you need to consider. Each degree of innovation (or type) has considerable organization design issues to think through.

Innovation jobs-to-be-done

I tend to not like offering up checklists as blog posts, you know those one hundred and one ideas for this or that, although I have to admit I like collecting them as a kick-starting resource. Today I decided to change my mind, Why?

Well, I think those of us involved in innovation need to keep reminding ourselves to not just work on the day’s problem that is in front of us but to ‘move along all the others, so this is my innovation jobs-to-be-done list that clients and consultants need to work upon.

Also, these do build towards a possible Chief  Innovation Officer’s agenda and content.

A reminder of what we need to keep tackling and consciously working on.

What do you think?

Those disruptive moments when you simply need to let go

Emotional attachment prompts some incredibly strong bonds, a host of clear affections and different reactions when it comes to our favourite brands or products but then something disruptive happens and these bonds are broken.

When something suddenly ‘disrupts’ this, it triggers a set of mixed emotions that shakes you and stirs up different feelings that take some time to re-order in your mind.

I try to seek understanding and then simply have to let go, even when they so often stare me in the face. Sometimes you still don’t want to finally let go until you are ‘hit’ by such a disruptive event.

The recent Kodak moment is one of those

One of those has happened to me with the filing of bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 for Kodak.

For so many people those “Kodak moments” make up such incredibly important parts of our lives. Stuffed under the beds, in boxes, in cupboards are those images of youth, family, important occasions and holidays that sit happily in the back of our minds waiting to be prompted by those images captured with the help of Kodak.

Hindsight and that regrettable smugness, that seems to always emerge.

Shoring up the fragile innovation system, call GE

Well, the World Economic forum’s annual meeting is beckoning later this month. During the period of 25th to 29th January, the WEF attempts to engage business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.( http://www.weforum.org/)

Just released on 18th January is the GE Global Innovation Barometer with the results of its second annual review on innovation. Here is the source site to check out and explore your own needs: http://www.ge.com/innovationbarometer/

The aim of the release is to use this and have this available for the meeting in Davos as well as shape GE’s innovation agenda going forward. For the Davos meeting, let’s hope our leaders have the time and inclination to review its content.

No doubt GE will be there and if  Beth Comstock is going as the senior vice president and chief marketing officer of GE I’m sure she will be leading the “innovation does matter” charge.

A Business Model Canvas Set to Explode

I’d just finished a workshop on Business Model Canvas about gaining clarity in large organizations, when suddenly the flood gates seem to have opened up a day or so later, for me to see beyond and piece more of it together in my mind.

After swirling around in this maelstrom of articles, tweets, new publishing, advanced announcements I had to gain some high ground to recover my breath and think a little more. Catching my breath, here is my clarity take and prediction for the BMC.

Ignoring lots of early warning signs

Maybe I should have seen this coming earlier but sometimes you hear a distant rumble but you simply shrug your shoulders and get on with your own work.

This week it hit me so I spent some time piecing together different aspects around the shifts taking place on the Business model canvas that has been going on in different parts of the world for my prediction:

2012 is the BMC tipping point year

From what I can see is the Business model is about to go through a really important (further) tipping point and cross that chasm (thanks Geoffrey Moore) into mainstream adoption. Why?

For whom the bell tolls

I felt the heavy sound of the bells tolling away coming through two articles I have been reading and it reminded me of For Whom the Bell Tolls a famous novel by Ernest Hemingway.

I read two short articles over this weekend, one was entitled “Avoiding Innovation’s Terrible Toll” written by Spencer E Ante, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://on.wsj.com/zJ9IIT ) and the other by Jeffrey Phillips “When executives talk about innovation, watch out” in his innovate on purpose blog here (http://bit.ly/wpaqWu)

The first was the sad demises of Kodak
If you have not seen the day of Revolution in a small town where all know all in the town and always have known all, you have seen nothing.- For Whom the

Bell Tolls
Rochester may not be the ideal place to live, the headquarters for Kodak but it was the place where thousands of people earned their living by being associated with Kodak. They worked there, they supported it in the community, and they mostly benefitted from it.

What saddens me of course is that they at Kodak did not have that ability to react to such dramatic changes within their industry.

Open Innovation, Technology Platforms and a New Business Model- All-in-One Biggie!

Recently I was reminded about one of the most ambitious open innovation projects around- the Innovation Medicines Initiative- set up here in Europe. I think you will find this interesting to pick up upon.

Without doubt, this is one of the most highly ambitious and bold initiatives I’ve come across.

I think anyone seriously interested in the combination of open innovation, the use of a collaborative technology platform built around a novel new business model within such a highly competitive industry of Pharmaceuticals should watch this initiative with growing interest.

It can point to significant changes in the impact and contribution of innovation management.

From its initial concept inception in 2004 and 2005, with the IMI established in 2007 as a Joint Undertaking, it has operated as an autonomous body for approximately a little over two years as I understand it.

Here I provide a fairly concise outline of its evolution and what challenges it is currently facing. It still is too long but it provides the essentials (I hope) on an amazing and bold initiative here in Europe and is worth reading until the end-really!

Background to the Innovation Medicines Initiative (IMI)

The value of having an innovation coach.

Behavioural coaching is big business, by having your personal coach alongside you when you are making a significant change in your role has been invaluable to many executives.

Equally in having external support when someone is either stepping up in the organization or making a significant change in their responsibilities has recognised value to that person and to the organization to manage the transition.

There is significant value in employing an innovation coach in my opinion, let me explain why here.

The growth of the innovation coach
I predict innovation coaching will grow in its recognition, value and importance in the future. Why?

There is a growing sense of urgency around the need for innovation to solve our growth problems. This quest for seeking out growth and new opportunities continues to raise innovation consciousness.

We all are aware that part of the barriers to better innovation adoption come from our existing and constrained mental models, so when you introduce the need for greater innovation you introduce multiplicity- you get challenged more, and your current framework of ‘business as usual’ gets disturbed significantly.

What is called for increasingly is a far more open mind that allows for opening up and gaining greater connectivity on a host of different levels.

The more we connect, the more we see innovation potential.

Re-ordering the organization’s genetic code for innovation.

As we enter 2012, what really disappoints me is that we still have not cracked the innovation DNA code sufficiently to embed this within the organization’s genetic principles, structures or systems for completing an everyday innovating business. Why is that?

I see no reason why innovation cannot be a clear (integrated) management discipline, shared, taught and fully aligned with an organization’s strategic intent and execution.

It needs to have a set of molecules that carry the ‘genetic’ innovation information in logical and a comprehensive arrangement, of its separate elements. These need to be strung together like all living cells by a set of clear rules.

The code order defines the sequence, the “alphabet” of the organization’s ability to innovate. Well, that is how it should look if we want to allow innovation to enter the present DNA of an organization. Innovation cannot sit outside or be run in parallel but it needs to form part of the essential organizational code.

I am convinced innovation can be implicitly understood but I still feel there is an awful lot of conflicting advice being offered that must leave many confused. Let me add to the confusion!