In a recent report, jointly from the World Economic Forum and McKinsey called the “The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the factories of the future” they made a number of observations

“After a decade of flat productivity, the arrival of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) is expected to create up to $3.7 trillion in value to global manufacturing. A few years back, experts noted that the changes associated with the 4IR would come at an unprecedented rate yielding incredible results for those who truly embraced them.

Still, the hockey stick of benefits has not kicked in yet – while all companies are making efforts to adopt technology, most of the production industry (~70%) remains in pilot purgatory (where technology pilots last for extended periods of time, and companies do not take the final step of scaling up viable technologies). Less than 30% of manufacturing companies are actively rolling out Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies at scale”

No wonder we presently have trouble attracting many businesses onto platforms when they are still very much behind in deciding or deploying a strategically thought-through IIoT digital design, that is connecting everything up.

It is equally holding a new form of innovation back, one that is highly collaborative where partners come together to work on more complex problems. Collaborators can achieve solutions only by being “fully” connected up, comfortable with their data, understanding and contribution, both within their knowledge and insights.

The power of multiple-connected ecosystems gives innovation a completely different momentum but it needs this 4th industrial revolution to be fully operative, for a digitally connected world in manufacturing and beyond.

According to a recent Deloitte report: Most manufacturing lines still look a lot the same way they did 10, 20 or even 30 years ago. Operators clock in, have a brief conversation with their crew and shift supervisor and then operate a machine or tool for 8-12 hours before heading home. Depending on the day, the machine may break and need maintenance or an adjustment, the line settings may need to be modified for a specific product or run, or the operator may need to step away to resupply the line or be trained on a new procedure. In 4IR transformed manufacturing sites this is no longer the case. So why are we adopting digital in our manufacturing plants slowly and very cautiously?

The biggest reason is dealing with the fear of the unknown – a lesson in 4IR change management.

This fear of the unknown, that constant blocker of “not been tested in our environment” has greatly inhibited adoption. Equally the nature of much of production has been designed “on the fly” and the equally tough job of connecting the whole process up in a new integrated, fully connected system meets huge resistance. Legacy systems plague the ability to break out of our present traps of silo’s and we are still struggling to solve these issues, machine by machine, a process by process, incompatible software and hardware, piece by piece.

Arguably Industry is trapped by complexity. The system complexity, understanding and investment delays are often huge and difficult to unwind. Many organizations are constantly meeting resistance to change, building some very mixed views of transformation and its lasting benefits. Thirdly the redesign to save space, and to determine more up-stream flexibility needs embracing digital solutions and reliance on partners and levels of collaboration not truly established to date. Any revolution is difficult, costly and requires time to work through a change in “order” to adapt to the new.

The Underpinning drive to connect-up is getting closer to that “crossing over” point

Increasingly, there is this recognition that the competitors seem to be moving faster towards becoming more digital, so it then becomes a race to catch up, as this “digital advantage” is increasingly eroding competitive advantage for the digital laggard, even if he is today the market leader. There also continues today that industry disruption is increasing, by those spotting both opportunity and weakness in present market players. Those that are digital laggards can’t achieve the same flexibility, the speed of manufacturing change, productivity and response as the new investor, building more on “greenfield” principles. The established player has processes that are fixed far more on past trading conditions, where longer production runs produced (past) economies of scale that became over time, more rigid and not adaptive.

Supply chains have often remained reliant still on manual instructions with limited visibility to the whole supply change to manage, adjust and respond. Today, production is changing its philosophy where flexibility is “baked in”, for adapting further upstream and downstream so as to cater to a greater individual client and customer need. High levels of automation are generating the “digital factory” that comes as an offspring of this 4th industrial revolution.

The internal change is slow. There is a strategic resistance, there is a lack of organizational agility and still not the level of commitment this is required, driven from the top. Hence why we are stuck in so many “pilot purgatories”

Yet the threat of not changing is building pressures. this reluctance to embrace a new digitally connected world is feeding the “seeds of destruction”. Customers expect rapid response, reduced delays, tailored designs and greater engagement.  What is going to shift the needle on this dramatically to recognize we are in a real revolutionary period and caution is not your friend but your enemy?

There are increasing use cases being built and shown. The WEF wants to create a neutral, learning platform, which provides the best technical and organizational insights with respect to 4IR technologies in manufacturing to accelerate the delivery of the benefits, to give a sort of safe harbor. Such a learning platform will also facilitate collaborative action and the new partnership between companies and governments. Confidence grows through these learning exchanges This will partly help yet this will not be the real catalyst, that lies in addressing the old legacy problems, in bold, imaginative ways.

Innovation is one powerful catalyst ripe for leveraging in this 4th Industrial Revolution.

I wrote a post over on the Hype site “The Innovation World is Changing Due to the 4th Industrial Revolution“: We first need to recognize that there are twin forces at work, feeding off each other. We are facing greater disruption and an increasing innovation pace. These are constantly combining, relentlessly adding the new shape to our future. We are actually caught up in a very revolutionary period. The prospect of new innovation potential will eventually work through into the world of Industry 4.0 as a major game changer“. It is all ready for those accelerating and being fully committed to their 4IR journey.

We have to recognize the days of simple product innovation are dwindling. where technology, digital solutions, greater customer insights, where a new breed of designers, engineerings, scientists and software talent are combining built through a platform and new innovation ecosystems thinking, are all emerging. This new innovative approach is building greater complexity into our final innovation offerings, yet it is providing increased customer value or societal needs, on problems that require this combined thinking.

We need to recognize that we are increasingly becoming reliant on collaborative platforms, to realize the result: one of more radical innovations, that are capable of winning the hearts and minds of many consumers as they are more adaptable, adjustable to personalization, rapid shifts in trends or solving their complex problems with imaginative solutions, unseen at the time, in ways not possible without embracing and connecting up in the digital world.

Reality dawns, when the penny finally drops as I said in the Hype post “The customer is increasingly at the epicenter of the economy. The products and services are enhanced through the digital capabilities that boost their value and worth. New materials are making our assets more durable and resilient, and data and analytics provide the valuable feedback needed to build even better services and performance in the future. All this connecting and reacting is requiring new forms of collaboration, and we are seeing new types of organizations emerging. They are far more dependent on platforms and ecosystems. Innovation is the unlocking mechanism”

There is a real value in recognizing and delivering on the fourth industrial revolution, we can start to think outside our classic product innovation boxes. We can shift our often-linear thinking as the Industry 4.0 is the revolution that connects all the parts. We can loop, explore, connect, build scenarios, test assumptions, build digital twins to just the product and manufacturing impact.  Recognizing the transforming potential of having fully connected up digital factories will revolutionize how we manage innovation going forward. It shifts our thinking and the management of innovation dramatically.

The ability to have a more “rapid response, flexible manufacturing” can align more to market shifts earlier. We can begin to design products that are more “digitally connected” that can be updated in the consumer’s premise or hand. We can enhance “their” innovation by shortening the time-to-execution and extending the product life cycle, we can build new potential through greater innovation design, based on increasing insight and collaboration.

Growing the business in new ways, we are building revenue based on Industry 4.0.

Deloitte put out one report “Industry 4.0 and manufacturing ecosystems. Exploring the world of connected enterprises“ where it focuses on a few themes that point towards the benefits of IR4. One is growing the business through I4.0 and also integrating the digital and the physical to achieve business objectives

Growing the business comes through the transforming of engineering, research, design and achieving increased levels of customer engagement and interaction and achieving a greater co-design of the products themselves. The key is again through innovation to make already existing products smarter, offer more data relevancy from smart technology, the change to add completely new products and services in format or build alternatives in business model thinking.

We have the ability to apply a greater “intelligence” to marketing products, using analytics and predictive customer tools to draw closer to actual need. The opportunity to improve the aftermarket experiences, extend the life of the product and work towards maximizing uptime all have value. The use of sensors dramatically helps connect the product throughout its lifecycle to be constantly monitored, updated and managed in collaborative ways between the buyer and seller.

Application-based technology, based on connecting in new digital ways, can reduce the idea to market, be able to digitally link design to product intelligence and improve the overall effectiveness of having connected engineering. We can test, provide feedback on early design concepts, adjust them and redevelop their designs within our network of suppliers, customers, and the manufacturing.

Integrating the digital and the physical to achieve business objectives, the arrival of the digital twin.

Deloitte nicely put this as “It is the leap from digital back to physical—from connected, digital technologies to the creation of a physical object—that constitutes the essence of the Industry 4.0 concept”

We are at a point of combining information technology (IT) and operations technology (OT) to enable the creation and use of a digital twin for example and fuse our operating environment into one.

Deloitte points out “The value of a digital twin can allow companies to have a complete digital footprint of their products from design and development through the end of the product lifecycle. This, in turn, may enable them to understand not only the product as designed but also the system that built the product and how the product is used in the field. With the creation of the digital twin, companies may realize significant value in the areas of speed to market with a new product, improved operations, reduced defects, and emerging new business models to drive revenue.

The digital twin may enable companies to solve physical issues faster by detecting them sooner, predict outcomes to a much higher degree of accuracy, design and build better products, and, ultimately, better serve their customers. With this type of smart architecture design, companies may realize value and benefits iteratively and faster than ever before.

A digital twin can be defined, fundamentally, as an evolving digital profile of the historical and current behavior of a physical object or process that helps optimize business performance. The digital twin is based on massive, cumulative, real-time, real-world data measurements across an array of dimensions. These measurements can create an evolving profile of the object or process in the digital world that may provide important insights on system performance, leading to actions in the physical world such as a change in product design or manufacturing process”

“Indeed, the real power of a digital twin—and why it could matter so much—is that it can provide a near-real-time comprehensive linkage between the physical and digital worlds. It is likely because of this interactivity between the real and digital worlds of product or process that digital twins may promise richer models that yield more realistic and holistic measurements of unpredictability. And thanks to cheaper and more powerful computing capabilities, these interactive measurements can be analyzed with modern-day massive processing architectures and advanced algorithms for real-time predictive feedback and offline analysis. These can enable fundamental design and process changes that would almost certainly be unattainable through current methods”

The Deloitte report Industry 4.0 and the digital twin is a highly useful reference to read.

The present organizational inertia is stopping innovation to realize radically different benefits from Industry 4.0

There are so opportunities for innovation well beyond products and services. We require new approaches, new skills, different talent and design capability to realize and leverage the power of connecting coming from industry 4.0. It can offer us, for the first continuous learning, we can tap new a network of talent through ecosystems and platforms designed for greater collaboration and exchange. We can reach far more into underserved markets through greater customer connections and engagement, we can co-design with them.

We can, by embracing 4IR, have available far more predictive and evaluation tools to help improve processes, to reduce or test risk, to prototype and experiment, partly engaged with customers in learning and adjusting design and value. We can build and connect different supply chains that read and react, we can create new ecosystems where we share a common goal and value, we can enable more agile systems that can adapt and respond to changes in real time to reconfigure the ‘connected factory’.

Innovation emerges out of the Industrial 4.0 initiative in radically different ways to explore and exploit.

We are waiting for the fully connected up factory and process so we can apply a very different digital set of innovation tools. Until then we have innovation being managed the current linear, disconnected way.

We fail to have a seamless set of connections into our industrial process world, into our designers, engineers, research scientists and more importantly our customers. Until we all get the same “line of sight” innovation stumbles along its familiar “guessing game” derived of insight and underlying knowledge.

The quickly we connect up and build the fourth industrial revolution we can explore, build and redesign our whole innovation process. We can .look towards managing more radical innovation design in ecosystems and networks, that push existing boundaries, explore new technologies and materials, that all can combine into the Innovation Revolution that follows the Industrial Revolution.

The post Innovation cannot expand without the 4th Industrial Revolution first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

If you are not aware, it is worth reading about the Gordian Knot.

“For people the world over, the Gordian Knot represents the difficult, the intractable and often the insolvable problem.

Today’s systemic business problems are the modern-day equivalent of this seemingly impossible challenge, our Gordian Knots to untie or cut through.

According to Greek mythology, the huge, ball-like Turkish knot with no ends exposed was impossible to untie. An oracle had predicted that the first person to do so would become the ruler of all Asia. Thousands of people had tried, without success, to unlock its complex riddles. Alexander of Macedonia, son of King Philip II of Macedon, solved this puzzle simply and very creatively – by cutting it in half with his sword, exposing its ends and making it possible to untie. Alexander the Great went on to conquer all of Asia, just as the oracle predicted”.

So are Organizations Cutting their Gordian Knots?
So how can we cut the intractable knot inside organizations and thrive from it?
We all face increasing uncertainties and are having our trust battered. We live increasingly in a world of complexity. We are seemingly not rising to the challenges that seem to be growing in this complexity in the global, organizational and personal context.

For me it is attempting something new and different, can often undo these knots we find ourselves. We grab digital transformation as one of those solutions. Often that simply makes it even more complex unless we cut through the current impossible knots we have today.

Innovation has a vital role to play but it must be ‘treated’ differently.
Where do we start? Firstly we need to revisit any work we are thinking about changing more on an “adaptive enterprises and systems” way of thinking.
We need to find ways to deal with unpredictable, discontinuous change and make this more predictable for us to manage.

We need to be agile, fluid and adaptive in allowing design, systems, and processes to continually adjust, to reflect the constant challenge of change going on continuously.

We lack often a real coherence of purpose; we lurch from one opportunity to another, from one-quarter of financial results into another, reacting to that moment, often defensively, with often no longer-term consistency in our activities. Performance has been taken over by opportunistic behaviors. Innovation often takes the real brunt of this. It gets cut like it is the very knot that needs cutting!

Our intended strategy, moves suddenly, into more of a deliberate strategy, and then somehow this gets abandoned or unrealized. We keep responding and slowly we replace this with an emergent strategy that is rapidly become our realized strategy that we present to the world, as a response to ‘factors outside our control’ for our often indifferent performance. We are passing through different strategy responses without any coherence of purpose.

Who really talks about the EXACT results achieved from a specific innovation for instance? We might get financial numbers, we will get lots ot “hype” but we never get the recognition, that transforming validation of this success, maybe in rare cases. Why is that?All we hear is just a general reference to it, to cloak innovation often in the ineffectiveness that lies within. We bundle up our innovation activity, we cloak it in mystery, we fail to draw it out and give it the credit it is often due to our growth strategy. We rarely encourage it and give it the real recognition it deserves but we constantly “simply” talk about our innovation success.

I think innovation should be central to any events involving results and predicted future. Knowing the innovation capability is knowing the changes to a better future and shareholders are denied that. Do we have any clarity on innovation processes, are they sustaining or one-off, do we know the investment being made in building individuals innovation value. Do we break out innovation investments in capability, capacity or competence management. We should, as innovation grows a company, it is a major indicator of future success. It needs more “cutting open” and revealing, as “our” innovation management process.

For innovation and many things going on within organizations they often lack a real coherence, they ‘signal’ inconsistent behaviors, especially within the organization. These bad signals simply build up all the tensions and dysfunctional aspects that middle order management and the organization, in general, has to mop up and cope with.

How can innovation thrive in this sort of chaotic mess? No wonder it never takes hold, it just has nothing ‘permanent’ to attach too and grow. Management needs a radical overhaul so innovation can be the vehicle for what is articulated but often poorly delivered on a consistent basis.

Context & Coordination needs designing in purposefully.
Again, where do we start? We start with ‘disconnect’ that organizations often have. As we “cut through” the problems we need to take the different strands and piece them together. To make fresh knots to make a different strength. The understanding of the underlying purpose of the organization going beyond just making money and keeping the shareholders happy is that it does need a deeper primary function, it needs re-articulating, it needs constructing a new entity. Some organizations do a reasonable job of this but many simply don’t.

We need to restate our primary function and purpose far more in its societal contribution. We need to express the bounds as a governing set of principles that are known, reinforced and measured against. We then need to set about building in a consistent way, the capabilities that are able to produce the outcomes. Those new outcomes need innovative thinking to be central to them.

We need to build in the accountability into the roles that reflect that need to combine innovation, effectiveness, and efficiency, that is needed so they can be managed equally side by side. We need to teach the ability to be adaptable and recognize the differences so as to actively manage the ‘creative’ conflicts and tensions.

Innovation can help in cutting through existing “knotty” problems by searching for new strands that give fresh opportunity to be tied together and build strength beyond the existing. We need to cut through old knots but, yes, make new ones that form around some of the old and plenty of the new, “weaved” into them, to give them a greater strength of purpose and ability to take on new “knotty” problems, in different innovative ways.

The post The legend of the Gordian Knot and today’s organizations knotty problems first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Let me provide a short narrative to give this a meaning and why it is becoming so important

Today we deliver content- It has become far too easy. We are drowning in it on a daily basis. We all suffer a massive deluge of digital input. Content can’t stand alone.

• What we need is context to anchor content and give it the clear meaning to understand………..that’s our necessary starting point.
  

Context shifts everything, it gives it shape, a structure to draw (deeper) meaning from. We learn to know, to integrate, to remember, to understand and to act.

Of course, context is going to be fluid as it builds out its related content.

Having content and context is complementary, interconnected, and interdependent, they interrelate to one another.

As we gain more insights we can potentially build a greater understanding. We simply improve our knowledge.

It is going to be needed to be adaptive as we learn but it will be placed in ‘certain bounds’. If we start from a much clearer starting base then the learning and discovery allow people to want to find solutions as they gain increased knowledge and provide fresh inputs, they begin to strongly relate. We pass through memory understanding as we learn.

“ Context provides the innovation marching orders” in my world

• We achieve a higher sensitivity to needs and understanding, we begin to relate
• We engage more, we can dialogue more, we ‘unite’ more in relating
• It adds more value to our thinking, it triggers additional ideas and contribution
• Functionality and Capability then follow from this- we build it differently

Context gives us certain guard rails or borders to help gain a more united focus. Where we go after that, by pushing those borders will depend on those involved, by us collectively seeing a greater value in an evolving context of mutual understanding.

• The ‘setting it in context’ allows for dialogue, adding more value to the thinking.

Context needs to also become, increasingly the arbitrator of success. Around this, you form your community that seeks out the possible solutions to this. Context gives knowledge into the hands of others to go and work on finding possible solutions.

• Knowing the context gives us something highly relevant to judge eventual outcomes on.

Q: How can we absorb and learn differently?

• We are overwhelmed by “content stock”
• We need to understand (increasingly) what is relevant to us
• How should we engage? What can make it easier?
• We need to build content creation for a context-specific world
• This needs to be increasingly tailored to our needs with help increasingly from (AI + Machine Learning)

Introducing the notion of Knowledge Graphs (KG) – its value and purpose

Here I wanted to give a deeper explanation of knowledge graphs- a ‘potted’ history and future view.

I wrote about Knowledge Graphs “The Arrival and Potential of Knowledge Graphs Into Our World” to give them a little depth of understanding.

So, my attempt here in this post is to give Knowledge Graphs a more ”layman” context so we can begin to see how this “Knowledge Graph” concept can become really important to recognize, support and apply in our lives. They help us relate faster.

KG will equally become a significant contributor to the industrial application as well, as increasingly it will build knowledge visually and be part of our everyday working life in related searches

I recently heard Knowledge Graphs will become as topical as “Artifical Intelligence” as a prediction for use in an industrial application.

We are told Artificial Intelligence is meant to be a panacea to solve all this current ‘disconnects’.  No, not without solutions like Knowledge Graphs alongside them, well actually underpinning much within AI

It is once we try to make all the ‘connects’ in the knowledge that is out there, waiting to form new relationships, we unleash our connected understanding in completely new ways……….we become more creative, informed and innovative….so let’s look at these a little more:

Knowledge Graphs captures the relationship between people, processes, applications, data- the things and their relationships

KG makes the connections for “contextual information”

• We need to stop stringing together to build a picture of things, piece by piece
• We need a way to bring together contextual knowledge in greater collective forms

Connecting knowledge is one of our biggest challenges today

The more you “see” within the relationships the better the insight, to influence decisions, to set actions and directions.

This leads to “cognitive solutions”

Let take an Example from  Google Search

Google pioneered or advanced Knowledge Graphs- “the information box on the right-hand side”

Examples “Google”:  “Bertrand Russell” or “the “Mona Lisa” or as shown here “Leonardo da Vinci”

• We are linking data and semantics (well-defined, related), easy to query and explore
• We are linking relevant information- (threads) which we can build and add too, in time (AI) smart. We are building dependencies of understanding (content and context)
• It integrates (over time) with machine learning
• Knowledge = Structured = Connected Relationships = Entities

Outcomes are represented in knowledge graphs (visuals)

This gives us data visualization, logical reasoning, it represents and presents knowledge

So why KG? It is becoming essential for Enterprises to link Knowledge and Intelligence

Today it is estimated 90% of enterprise data is unstructured, it is hidden in textual form (documents and files). What if?

• It Organizes and Distributes Structured Knowledge
• It has Openness, Transparency, and Accessibility
• It is Collaborative, a Sharing and Exchanging ‘mechanism’
• It is Enriching and Contextualized
• It ‘bridges’ Enterprise Knowledge needs with Open Knowledge Learning

The technical know-how lies within Siemens today and this has been my initial catalyst to understanding its value.

The outcomes are full of helping us get organized:

Ontologies, Common Language builder, Builds Schema, Common Descriptors, Vocabularies

Turning A Data Aware to a Knowledge Ecosystem, linking data, information, into knowledge and building on this

It is full of Entities and Relationships, it is dynamic and grows by you making the connections to constantly improve.

If organized differently:  it can create a better customer experience, greater efficiencies, increased insights for more connected products and services and understanding across the whole enterprise value chain, internally informed, externally communicated.

It can build upon those “keepers of specialized knowledge” driven by domain experts and business users that use their (growing) insights to increase connections and subsequent value generation.

Machine learning works at understanding dependencies so emerging from any learning you get a growing sense of intent, objective and those important aspects that you are wanting to find out more upon, to build out even further. The move from just “stringing data together” to build a picture of ‘things’ you get greater contextual knowledge.

It is this lack of connecting all of this knowledge up that is really placing demands on organizations that manage knowledge flow today, As we know it is often very inefficient to know where the knowledge actually lies.

As we digitally transform and improve the IoT through cognitive/ AI solutions we will automate and personalize communications. It is recognizing the semantic technologies part that will deliver cognitive solutions that have the real value.

This value can be built in very different ways than today with the use of Knowledge Graphs. It can have the incredible value of being driven by the domain experts and actual business users, as they make and use their knowledge to make the increased value of all the connections they have, increasingly in a growing network of relationships, constantly building a deeper domain knowledge.

It is a Learning Memory Builder

It gives us: What we know or need to know how we integrate, remember, to act and understand

• What is our challenge? (the need)
• The Suggested Solutions (the insights)
• Value Generation (empowered, equipped and enabled, to decide, to improve upon)

The promise of Knowledge Graphs allows for the collected data and the connections to provide insight, influence decisions and set direction. The more you “see” all the connections and relationships the greater these become, and then the better you become, in being “informed” to act in more knowledgeable ways.

The post So the value we can derive from using Knowledge Graphs first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

I decided to invest a decent amount of time into the Siemens 3^rd Quarter Announcements and it has been worth it.

I really don’t understand the reporters and analysts attending this event as they seem to continue to stay stuck in their recurring opinions and stances, constant looking in the rear-view mirror. It has its reference points perhaps but it is understanding “the road ahead and its conditions” that provide shareholder value.

We need to become more forward-looking based on strategic outlook, innovation potential and market opportunities.

The analysts seek to always look constantly to the immediate, often not looking beyond their own noses. They seem not to want to go under the bonnet through investigation, just rely on ‘given’ handouts or myopic views, rooted in the short-term. The sound of future innovation potential was in most of the event as very evident but lost in the focus on immediate numbers and results. Why?

Widening the scope of inquiry

Do these questions, many highly narrow in their own scope serve us well? Surely we should be looking far more for that “real, sustaining value” under the hood of a company that shows a growing clarity to the future? One or two questions certainly were attempting to get under the hood but you get that feeling they (reporters) were simply  wanting to “pain the CEO in a corner” in forcing out positions wthn the management’s reply that then”paints them in a corner” so the reporter can go back and refer to them (constantly) at a later date. I find that highly negative.

Although there was a new word that emerged to counter this and couch future options under “optionality” simply as much in the future stays “highly fluid”. It is advisable to have constant evaluations, up to the necessary point of a required decision, to then make the best decision in (their) judgement.

Of course, some of the replies from Management remain vague, sometimes annoyingly so, couched in future options such as “optionality” that can leave you, as a listener, in negative territory wanting more understanding.

By the way, the meaning of “optionality value” (optionality used in a financial sense) is “enormous and choice or discretion is allowed”.  Now that sounds intriguing as it was used many times in this Siemens Event.

As the CEO of Siemens rightly put it “it is always a difficult balance to strike between the doable and the desirable. Sometimes the speed to go to the desirable has got to be slower because the doable will otherwise not be accompanying you”.

Who actually creates the volatility- the messenger sometimes needs to reflect.

Share price volatility depends to a large degree on finding the balance between short-term gain and long-term planning and structuring.  One headline prior to the actual the event was “Siemens sees lower profit, announces restructuring followed with this short “breaking news” article : “Siemens sees lower profit, announces restructuring” then you hear one of the analysts noting “that they see today that the share price is trading down” asking what Management is doing about it. Well, duh, of course, results are down for many well-explained reasons, market reasons. Yet the immediate reactions are far more due to these immediate news feeds that shareholders were given (by you analysists) that provides a very restricted story.  The headline-grabbing reaction that this type of “dramatic” heading makes the positive story very hard to get out there as the valuable one to absorb.

Would I scoop up Siemens with many others within closely related business areas? Specifically, those desperately struggling in their crisis, mired in rapid reorganization and sell off, of past strategic parts? Yet that is what you immediately think, with headlines like these above but is that really true? Clearly not in my opinion, totally different but treated in the same sensational way.  I think it is a headline bordering on a level of reporting that continues to push reporting into an ever-tighter corner, boxed in by this type of translation and a constant search for “hype”.

Listening for the deeper messages from this Siemens event

So I wanted to sit down and listen carefully to the very extensive explanations laid out by the CEO, Joe Kaeser, and the CFO Ralf Thomas. I said earlier “we need to get under the bonnet” and the level of “analysis offered” at the event just failed to do that for many. I saw this differently. Many, not all, were applying their own narrow lenses to the questions they asked not connecting all the story given at the event. As Mr. Kaeser remarked, “I do appreciate that maybe the quality of detail has been insufficient for some, but obviously have been more than able to digest for others, so we need to bring things together….”

So what has this to do with innovation?

Well, it is only when you get under the hood you begin to see the sparks of creativity, innovation, and imagination working away. In Siemens case when you are in leadership positions where the “feast of opportunities” for Siemens electrification, automation and digitalization systems of products, solutions, and services are coming together in some imaginative and thoughtful ways to evolve and solve many of the challengings within the world, you need to dig a whole lot deeper.

Perhaps Siemens is failing to tell this “future story” in a better way. They have seen the paradigm shifts and are repositioning themselves to address these in new business-orientated ways to further shareholder value. Here lies the real story, by being adaptive and responsive you are tapping into creating attractive growth opportunities. So why become fixated on the past (last quarter results) when you need to understand one company and its approach to the future, to overcome transformational challenges? It is managing these that gives us innovation, growth, and creativity.

Making the calls to a new platform for business need

I was reading, just before listening to this Siemens Event, a piece by BCG Henderson Institute, entitled “Leaping before the platform burns; the increasing necessity of pre-emptive innovation”

The article rightly points out that we know systems are failing faster than ever, businesses are operating in increasingly complex adaptive systems that are increasingly reliant on mutualistic relationships, where one benefits from another (business ecosystems in my thinking and work) to grow markets, to solve more difficult challenges and drive its development. Siemens is setting itself up to do just that.

The BCG article also points out “we are facing countervailing forces- negative feedback loops – that limit growth”. Part of those is “traditional business metrics and strategies that tend to reinforce these negative feedback effects”. One of the roles of management as nicely put in this BCG article is to “anticipate exhaustion”, “make big and small steps” and “embrace evolution”. Siemens is doing just that in what I heard.

At this Siemens event, I heard many analysts looking to provide negative feedback loops, in their questions. Management needs to give as much depth or color to ideas, concepts or future assumptions as they can. We come back to the balance between “doable and desirable” spoken about by Mr. Kaeser

Why should we look deeper and listen just a little harder?

As this event showed (well to me) that the depth of thinking, the processing and “best” judgment being outlined as a “way forward” offers a better pathway to a “feast of opportunities”. As Joe Kaiser rightly underlined the major intent of his outline was around the whole intent of Vision 2020+, to integrate the interest in an evermore “dividend world” in this balanced meaningful way. It may not be perfect, or fleshed out in the “granular detail” but it is signaling the way forward in very deliberate and broad brush strokes, the details of how this is “colored-in” will emerge in the months ahead.

Siemens is reshaping its organization for a greater long-term value creation by giving individual businesses sharper goals and targets to chase, to provide them more entrepreneurial freedom away from a consolidating center so as to sharpen their focus on their respective markets.

Siemens looks to build new growth opportunities in partly a new emphasis on IoT integration services, distributed energy management and greater infrastructure solutions for electric mobility. The decision to consolidate the business down into tighter groups, such as dealing with a broader remit in industrial digitalization gives new growth opportunities. How these are managed going forward is another matter as Siemens needs to believe it has greater strength than many others in this field of opportunity. It has but it does need to tell the different stories of that future in new ways.

I have some lingering doubts over the execution in this industrial digitalization, but I do not have doubts over a vision or where the focus needs to be. It is how responsive and adaptable they are and for me, that seems like a work-in-progress that is getting better but not yet good enough. The level of integration is going to be critical and well-managed with the senior group coming together in greater ways around the emerging vision and strategy. This needs well-managing.

I want to pick up on some of these real, tangible innovation stories in the next week or so.

The announcement of buying Mendix, a leader in a low-code application is certainly one is a very exciting purchase. My mind has been racing over this announcement.

We could be seeing a new platform dawn, one of a “Smart Platform, full of smart apps designed to seek out experience, not just data” This is going to be potential “context-aware”, “intelligent connected” and “pro-active” in intelligence outcomes.

One key to unlock this is visualization in programming, combining artificial intelligence and knowledge graphs to build better, informed work-flows. This is a must for me to focus upon as it overs the route to the 2^nd generation of platforms, smart and dynamic for abstraction and automation. The point of shifting to “experience relating” is crucial. I see a very clear three horizon plan emerging with this Mendix and Mindsphere integration that I’ll share soon that takes platforms into a new era.

This building of a business unit for IoT Integrated Services is another. The lack of platform adoption by many companies has been significantly held back by not addressing comprehensive strategies for digital transformation and a feeling of concern, to date, over the poorer comprehensive support needed in any transformation. If this can be pulled together in the way Siemens believes it can do this, then terrific but the providers of specialized services need to be pulled into the Mindsphere platform in different ways and repositioned in the Ecosystem to deliver on this ‘aspiration’ in greater service to the clients and customers’ needs and wishes.

I also want to investigate the new “Smart Infrastructure” business being ‘bundled together” in this announcement of a reorganization. Where what, how and why this will unleash a whole new era of innovation solutions. That is exciting to explore in multiple ways for innovation perspective.

So let me offer a simple summary

I heard a different story by listening carefully to the Siemens Event. It struck me as very progressive in how they are wishing to respond to the changing world. Yet more importantly where innovation can be positioned in the future vision that was outlined. There are so many stories of innovation potential to tell at Siemens- now that is a “feast of opportunities.”

My focus continues to get as deep as I can under the bonnet of Siemens, more and more as it reveals itself. It needs to think about building more “compelling” stories to link to the future, so the prevailing negative forces diminish or maybe regroup as they equally focus on the future and stop looking constantly in the rear-view mirror, attempting to predict the future,

When you stay stuck, perhaps based simply on the past and not look  deeper and rigorously towards the options Siemens have to explore in the future is a shame, it misses the possibilities and options and these seem highly promising if executed upon.

The management is attempting to do it job in sketching out the potential in a rapidly changing and challenging world and the future is not based on the past, believe me, but on how you set up for the future.

Telling the future innovation stories builds a better future for all involved. Somehow Siemens need to draw these out, it would help many ‘stuck’ in the present, based on (past) experiences.

Let’s give credit, where credit is due.  When a Management of a Company comes out with a strong vision, a set of well-thought-through validations and justifications. It equally resets the metrics and accountability closer to where success is found, closer to the market and reliant on people and technology to continue to combine and progress in new (imaginative) ways.

We should be applauding not pushing the underlying messages down into negative territory when the future does seem very bright.

The post A feast of opportunities for Siemens? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Thinking about ecosystems certainly allows us to go out of our normal scope of invention, innovation and being creative.

The ability to tackle those larger societal problems within an ecosystem, or combine unique resources to overcome a complex challenge you are incapable of solving alone, does have greater potential in a collaborative adaptive system.

Ecosystem co-operations can allow you to align with others, totally outside your existing relationships, so you can enter new markets, explore new concepts and design, that would have been impossible as an individual organization.

Applying ecosystem thinking offers you the collaborative ability to extend beyond more traditional channels of delivery, or restricted to only utilizing your existing infrastructure. It allows you to search and build on others specialization that “greater” innovation.

We are all making greater connections within ourselves, as we find and connect, not just into our own “tribes” that all the different social platforms are providing, so as to establish our own personal identity. Crowdsourcing is another example that is offering huge potential to exploit new frontiers, as it can encourage us to forge, and connect, so as to serve and grow whole new communities from ‘simple’ beginning, building on real-time knowledge, collaborations and resolving challenges and problems we know are “out there” but we, alone, did not have the means to solve.

The future of collaborations can increasingly share previously idle or under-utilized assets, it can extend the life, it can extract that ideal knowledge, often locked in one organization. We are seeing the most valuable companies that are emerging today are largely based on sophisticated platform business models where ecosystems are vital to their health and global ambitions (Apple, Amazon, Car Manufacturers are all examples).

Ecosystems built around specific platform designs are the future of innovation that takes designs and solutions into a new realm of opportunity, built on collaborative engagement and common missions. As we learn we adapt, as we share we grow.

But be aware – the challenges are difficult to work through

Often designing an Ecosystem involves designing the architecture, platforms, construct new standards and be equipped to integrate and adapt different members of a community, who have something relevant to contribute. It takes a lot of hard work and a sense of identity from all involved.  Managing this growing form of complexity is challenging old theories, boundaries, organizations and how they exist going forward. So much of the work involved is exploring the possible not ‘blindly’ taking other examples. Ecosystems are unique in design, relationships and the environment that surrounds them, they are personal too your design and need to solve . They survive and thrive due to that uniqueness and attraction.

Ecosystem innovation today is more about managing beyond the immediate known’s found within one organization’s limited focus of the world. The race is to gain advantage and often try to dominate and influence the future direction a market will take. This requires a broader perspective, a greater diversity of thinking by tapping into varying levels of specialized expertise. For innovation, you need to extend your view, push the boundaries and make sure you can connect up all the parts for it to grow and develop.

Regretfully we are not yet fully equipped to manage these new innovation ecosystems. We need to think through a better emerging theory of leading or good practice. We need to advance the measurement and impact that ecosystems will have within advancing our innovation activity. This is the exciting part, building, and learning, evolving a design of an ecosystem has a real potential to ‘create’ something different that has the potential to transform a germ of an idea into something living, breathing and valued, a set of tangible innovative outcomes.

Measuring innovation in ecosystems has real differences

To start we need to measure innovation more in the following aspects as our starting point:

Linkages – content and productivity of relationships, alliances, collaborations, interactions, networks, clusters and all the complementary aspects and assets deployed to do this

Knowledge engagement – the ability to attract knowledge into the organization, through greater content and value, through the people involved and the way we anchor and diffuse this new knowledge.

Intangible assets – increasingly people and the combination of their intellectual capital in knowledge, relationships and how they structure work will be the central focal point of innovation success.

Conditions for innovation – we need to develop the ability to ‘sense and respond’ to shifts in markets, from the competition and evaluating these changes in ‘real time’ and we will become far more reliant on data and analytics for this.

Connecting these four critical aspects becomes vital. As we learn to collect all this incoming knowledge (data-driven) this will then impact our own innovation programmes and require them to be more adaptive, dynamic and fluid. We need to recognize changing patterns, and then build in these reaction points to keep our own innovation activity staying ahead of the game.

Organising within Networks of Firms within multiple Ecosystems

The organization that envisages a changing world needs to organize around ecosystems to deliver on that vision to gain the leading influencers position.

Ecosystems require increased interactions within the community and need more tightly controlled activities to gain the synergies and effects of working within any networked system. Relationship management needs to keep focusing on enhancing, driving innovation and knowing how to adapt this within the whole concept. No easy task.

Ecosystems that ultimately produce new business models rest on a large capacity for agile thinking within the participating organizations. Internal capabilities and competencies get highly stretched by the new dynamics taking place, you need a strong orchestrator of the ecosystem to manage these challenges and many cultural biases that can blind a ‘line of sight’.

Aligning partners on a platform needs-basis is very different from aligning them to just one organization’s needs. In the past, we adapted to meet that specific requirement of that one dominant organization as they controlled the process. Today you can argue differently, why what you see as needed is not the best and maybe different than first envisaged, and it is better and evolutionary but demands more change and disruption internally. It allows for more breakthrough innovation, greater challenging of the existing status quo and often taking organizations out of their existing comfort zones.

As we think ecosystems, we need to think differently

Think carefully through any move to join innovation ecosystems, they do have a high, immensely attractive return, if managed well; they are nearly always disruptive to the existing markets and highly valuable to the participants. There also is a big ‘but’ here, since the pathway to get to that ‘success point’ is full of potential risk and immense ‘spent’ energy.

Watch out for those “burning platforms”

Burning platforms will be all around us, as we continue into the age of disruption. To counter this we must welcome the new era of global collaborative innovation where we will be learning the abilities to move between different ecosystems, collaborating at different levels of participation, to extract completely different forms of innovation value that advance our growth prospects.

A suggested way we need to think about building ecosystems

One recent report I was reading from Deloitte, based on some of its recent analysis, suggests that we need to consider and recognize where ecosystems and the platforms will help us. They suggest we begin by answering these initial questions that I have adapted and extended out in a different way:

1. What makes up the critical capabilities for minimum viable transformation to participate and learn about this shift taking place to understand and participate?
2. What needs to evolve in the enterprise strategy and especially where platform thinking comes in to play, to radically alter the innovative offerings that are not available as a stand-alone organization?
3. How can we liberate the internal potential of resources, stored knowledge, and latent assets so as to tackle harder challenges that can transform an industry and who can help in this?
4. Finally living in a changing world of blurring boundaries, uncharted frontiers, how can we participate in different ecosystems of learning and value that can transform our competitive position and provide us with a substantial leap?

In Summary

The ecosystem, through the use of technology, the cloud and a diverse set of collaborations, will increasingly become the mainstream for innovation inputs, accelerants, and the delivery of value. We need to prepare for it, experiment, become involved in different offerings to learn and build our understanding of how these can work (for us and others). Platforms, strategic partnerships, new business models will all be on the agenda of any serious global organization. To learn to deliver valuable innovation through this requires a radically different innovation system of management built around adapting and changing our thinking towards ecosystems by design.

Innovation will move from being based on incremental innovation, all designed in-house, single entity outcomes, into bold, collaborative offerings, cutting across today’s established industry boundaries, pushing out across different innovation frontiers. To achieve this new level of innovation capability requires participating on a variety of platforms and extracting in different ways across multiple ecosystems to meet your aims and align these with others. It calls for more deliberate design and thinking through, in collaborative open ways.  This will open up the whole need to re-evaluate the governance, the risk management and the resources needed to operate in this new innovating world. It is going to demand a very different set of disciplines, processes, and design.

Are you exploring this new innovation dynamic of platforms and ecosystems yet? You do need to get into a position to experiment, test, exploit and explore in limited ways to learn and adapt. It is even more dramatic in change than moving from closed to open innovation, it will challenge much that was only recently established to be radically redesigned and altered again.

There is so much to explore and build around innovation ecosystem design. It is exciting to explore, learn and attempt to translate into the future innovation designs we need, built on highly collaborative concepts.

***I have taken a post first published on the Hype Innovation Blog site and added to it in specific areas of additional thinking and understanding.

The post The chance to think differently about Ecosystems for Innovation first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Being fairly curious you search for the fit and its meaning to both parties as Innosight has been continually shaping their offering to focus more on the strategic positioning of innovation over the past few years as the market has been undergoing a significant change in client demands and innovation solutions. I wanted to work through all of what this might mean and some more.

The transaction overview is ” Huron will purchase Innosight Holdings, LLC for $100 million upon closing, consisting of $90 million in cash and $10 million in Huron common stock, plus contingent consideration of up to $35 million if specific financial performance targets are met over a four-year period”

This time last year we saw another acquiring of a pure innovation firm

This time last year we saw the takeover of Fahrenheit 212 by Cap Gemini and I wrote about it here under “In the blink of an eye, it gets something bigger.” I had suggested at the time that “David meets and marries a Goliath” and worried over the deal for Fahrenheit’s future.

Recently I went back and took an updated look and from all accounts the relationship is thriving (on the surface) and the Fahrenheit team seems to be well on track to achieve their stated aim of being a global innovation strategy and design firm  where their stated objectives are “we challenge the belief that innovation is inherently unreliable and have spent the last decade designing the method, building the model, and assembling the minds to make innovation a predictable driver of growth for our clients’ businesses“.

Part of their magic sauce lies in the Applied Innovation Exchange that had been designed and launched by Cap Gemini some weeks before Fahrenheit 212 was acquired. Still taking a fresh look at the underlying changes of that marriage is for another post, let’s return to Innosight’s move of being acquired by Huron.

Back to Innosight.

I consistently look at different innovation consulting firms and the directions they are taking as it makes sense to gauge the directions that client demand is taking. Innosight is one of those first port of calls for me. They have been undertaking some internal moves in recent years, to reflect the changes and challenges around a ‘pure’ focus on innovation and where it fits within the larger organization,  by attempting to move further up into the strategic design and alignment in building greater C-Level engagements, searching for larger project sized contracts.

Innosight has been continually shaping their offering to focus more on the strategic positioning of innovation. They break down their offering into three core parts- 1. Create Growth Strategies that “Strengthen and extend today’s business – while harnessing the disruptive innovations of tomorrow”, 2. Develop Innovation Capabilities of “the talent, culture, and systems to make innovation repeatable and reliable” and 3 Build New Business to “discover opportunities, design new business models, and launch high-impact new ventures.

Understanding the rationale. Working through it.

Innosight is a partnership so it was not so easy to gain the type of understanding you require, relating the aspirations, reality with hard numbers. Well as Huron is on the  NASDAQ (HURN) it becomes a little easier in what they need to declare for this acquisition.

I was a little surprised that Innosight had a turnover of $43 million in 2016, I was expecting more from a team of 90 people. Also how the breakdown of revenue by industry specific their business profile was not as I would have expected. Although these clearly change by the demand of the clients and the recognition that the consultant can deliver the work, compared to others, in a very tough competing environment.

According to the first webcast on this acquisition (17/2), Innosight has 31% of their revenue in Life Sciences and 15% in Healthcare in 2016, so on the surface, they have a 46% ‘fit’ to Huron. The big difference coming in the fact that Huron is servicing around 500 health organizations mostly individual hospitals and academic medical centers, with 400 universities and institutions. Innosight has focused far more on Corporations, one notable one being Aetna. Huron has around 2,000 employees and having present revenues (excluding Innosight) of $726m in 2016. Is it such a fit?

What did surprise me on how the Consumer Products part of Innosight’s business had fallen away from what I can see and that might reflect the growing gap still to be found at ‘appealing’ to the C-Level on strategic innovation and the ongoing need for operational delivery of innovation capabilities and competencies.

These insights show Innosight has been adapting and responding to changing innovation needs and market opportunities as they felt they could work the horizontal, across industry, for many of the innovation capabilities and designs, although it is certainly becoming more complex at strategic design level. Yet this across-industry has been going against the ‘competitive’ grain when you are facing large vertical and horizontal consulting practices that claim they offer both a real depth of industry and innovation-specific knowledge. Often I do question these claims, in what I see, with notable exceptions.

I think it is this positioning as a strategic consulting company, competing in an extremely tough environment with the big strategic consulting companies of McKinsey, BCG, Deloitte, Strategy& and a whole host of full consulting and service solutions where EY, KPMG, and others all compete for a slice of the innovation pie is a very tough one for Innosight to gain the momentum they would have liked.

Equally, at the operational and integration end, we see Cap Gemini, Accenture, TCS and many others offering digital and transformation services. No, a very tough market to compete in and I think for Innosight this must have been a constant ongoing struggle.

Rooting for the specialist.

I will instinctively root for the focused business that has innovation at its core and Innosight has been one of these. Their focus on strengthening and relating growth needs coming from innovation and its necessary alignment was a good but perhaps too niche a position to constrain their growth against such global competition.

The disruptive message they offered, although a powerful one, needs a highly receptive audience and most organizations leave their changes until they are often in the middle of a crisis and then they tend to panic and call in the ‘big guns’ of the consulting world.

Finally, in this section, Innosight’s growth route through innovation was a good position. They focused increasingly on alignment and taking a ‘future back’ approach to eventual strategic design, to determine new innovation business models was a good targetted focus and has been, I suspect, the reason for their compounding 20% yearly growth. Yet I can imagine they were not achieving that critical mass and scale I suspect they wanted, to stay independent and became open to an offer. For some to perhaps ‘cash out’ while others stay for varying reasons.

In the announcement of this acquisition Huron made the following overview:

“When combined, Huron and Innosight will use their strategic, operational and technology capabilities to help clients across multiple industries develop pioneering solutions to address disruption and achieve sustained growth.

“No industry is immune to disruption. Faced with increased competition, often from unconventional sources, organizations are forced to rethink their historical strategies to stay ahead of market forces and changing customer preferences,” said James H. Roth, chief executive officer and president of Huron. “Together, we will provide a full spectrum of services – from strategy to execution – that will help organizations think, plan and act differently to confront disruption and accelerate growth.”

Built by leading strategic thinkers and co-founded by renowned strategy consultant Mark Johnson and Harvard Business School professor and author Clayton Christensen, the world’s foremost authority on disruptive innovation, Innosight is a trusted partner to Fortune 500 companies and other leaders looking to strengthen today’s business while creating tomorrow’s growth engines. The firm’s innovation and transformational strategies have proven successful in industries undergoing disruptive change such as aerospace, automotive, energy, financial services, healthcare, insurance, life sciences and retail.

“Companies are under mounting pressure to satisfy a range of competing interests,” said Scott Anthony, managing partner at Innosight, who will become a Huron managing director. “But shifting stakeholder expectations, combined with disruptive change, create significant opportunities for today’s leaders. Huron and Innosight’s combination of capabilities in strategy, operations, technology, and analytics will enable us to offer transformative change to address these opportunities.”

Formed in 2000, Innosight recognized that traditional approaches to strategy and growth were not enough to help companies accelerate transformational change. This became the basis for its “future back” approach to strategy. Organizations that apply Innosight’s approach build leadership alignment on a vision for the future and create portfolios of new innovations and growth businesses that address changing customer needs and outpace their competitors.

Applying the same methodology alongside Huron’s deep industry expertise in healthcare, education and life sciences, the combined firms will help leaders in these critical industries successfully navigate changing market dynamics, regulations and consumer expectations to grow for the long-term”

“No industry is immune to disruption” Here lies the rub.

I think this disruption thought underscores the joint rationale for this acquisition. Heron is facing some massive forces of disruption in their primary business of Health as well as Education. With a Republican party looking really hard on how it will unwind or redirect the Affordable Care Act (ACA) The comprehensive health care reform law enacted in March 2010 (sometimes known as ACA, PPACA, or “Obamacare”) has given much of the past growth to Huron. Today they are seeing declines in this sector while this uncertainty continues. Clients are downsizing in projects while the political and macro conditions are sorted out.

The same is about to possibly ‘hit’ in Huron’s Higher Educational offerings as the new Administration has signaled large questions of necessary change in the general direction of Education- Presently with all the uncertainties of the new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos and the directions she takes in what some are assuming is a radical agenda of change, leaves the higher educational institutions in a potential ‘state of flux’.

As this potential set of policy disruptions will need time to get the level of clarification and granularity clients required, it exposes Huron and 70% plus of its business to many uncertainties.

Arguably, it will be well positioned when these policy decisions become clarified but that is potentially arriving over the next two to even four years between being decided and enacted, into policy and clarity for the individual institutions to react too.

This present operating environment for Huron does make for real uncertainty, especially in larger transformational consulting projects but it needs to manage the interim in different ways. So positioning for disruptive change and managing strategic and operation transitions become essential to help manage this period of great industry uncertainty.

Transformational guidance becomes the key mutual focus.

Innosight has been positioning itself increasingly as a growth strategy consulting firm focused on helping organizations design and create the future, instead of being disrupted by it. As a leading authority on disruptive innovation and strategic transformation, these identifications of new growth opportunities, making changes through new ventures and designing the capabilities to accelerate to significant industry and organizational change. will require a lot of guidance to support organizations as they contend with the change transforming their industries and businesses.

For Innosight does it make any changes with its direction? Open questions perhaps?

Innosight had a global footprint, it seems Huron withdrew from its international business expansion back in 2015. Although Innosight has 80% of its business in the US, will it continue to pursue growth outside?. It has an office in Singapore and one in Switzerland and when you are servicing Global fortune 500 equivalents you need this broader presence. Huron has really a 100% business in North America.

Do they compliment and focus only on the US market or will they stay global in ambition, if the C-Level remains as an essential focus, it stays both a necessity for one (Innosight) and an aspiration for the other (Huron). That will have its integrating challenges perhaps or will they combined have and global appeal in the focus sectors Huron currently serves as very US centric?

Equally, although Innosight has been growing its Healthcare and Life Sciences business the blending of very specific work on operational matters by Huron with Innosight’s C-Level future back work and the search for growth, new business models and launching new ventures needs some radical aligning to leverage well, it needs some dedicated work.

Innosight by spanning more the horizontal position, across industries needs some recalibrating possibly with Hurons’ more vertical depth and very deep operational engagement. Possibly not so easy but a challenge to extract and leverage the complementarities in many ways quickly, or it gets likely to becomes ‘bogged’ down in those past entrenched internal positions that are highly vertically focused.

Will this be a prelude to a new operating structure? Maybe it is the time.

Having this aspiration of Hurons in dealing at C-Level becomes a reality with the leadership team that resides in Innosight and the thought leadership that constantly emerges in the form of innovation thinking, books, and academic work.

Will Clayton Christensen, along with Mark Johnson and Scott Anthony give Huron the entry point into the C-Level and Government Corridors? I’m not sure it the core leadership team of Innosight is staying or cashing out?. That has yet to be fully and specifically clarified. How does that move across the 2,000 seemingly highly industry specific plus consultants, I think will be an equal challenge.

When you also look at the present advisory heavyweights of Academia, advising Innosight in the form of Vijay Govindarajan, Rita McGrath, Hal Gregersen, Jeff Dyer, Clark Gilbert as well as Clay Christensen, along with numerous others that work with Innosight to varying degrees, it should have greater ‘growth’ gravitas.

If the advisors to Innosight stay involved then the potential to gain leading academic insight, to help open corporate C-Level doors and clarify much, has a powerful ‘enabling effect’ that Huron will need to relate too. Hopefully, they, (Huron) are not losing this in the acquisition as it harnesses a really powerful brains trust in my opinion at the right point of organization entry.

I was a little surprised that Huron has 120 plus client-serving Managing Directors.

From what I understand is that Scott Anthony, the present MD of Innosight, will become one of these Managing Directors positioned in the Business Advisory service area. I wonder about this, for positioning around so much uncertainty and potential disruption if this is the right place?

Of course, I don’t have details of any of the Innosight teams new positioning but to transition from a partnership to a (highly) structured consulting firm as Huron seems to convey. The question becomes perhaps one of utilizing talent in the best way not ‘just’ fitting into given structures.

Maybe something more radical will emerge

I would argue with so much ahead in many corporate strategic redesigns, as well as coping with industry disruptions, both in the US and global markets, the scarce resource becomes those that can articulate and energize the set of strategic decisions needed, experienced in disruption and planning out new business models becomes the critical one to nurture and transfer.

That is not easy as it calls for a combination of change management skills and strategic grounding at C-Level ‘speak’. Then you gain the operational outcome ‘flowthrough’ from this and the challenge is harnessing those fairly rare resources both across vertical and horizontal challenges with the strategic dialogues delivered at the right level.

This managing of an internal design change can become the critical enabler and criteria to judge how this acquisition works in identifying, leveraging and harnessing the diverse resources across the ‘disrupting’ landscape ahead.

The existing structure at Huron is a classic consultants – seemingly siloed.

In Hurons recent risk assessment (Form 10-K) it stated on its employees ” the managing directors are the key drivers of the business. They work externally to serve clients as advisors and engagement team leaders, originate revenue by developing new and existing client relationships, and enhance our reputation. Internally they create our intellectual capital and develop our people. Our senior directors, directors and managers manage the day-to-day client relationships and oversee the delivery and quality of our work product.”

I would wonder how the dynamics and flow of a partnership differs in where it places its emphasis, time, management and energy. I feel it will require some adjustments for Innosight to relate into a much larger organization set up more vertically in focus and structured in the traditional lines of a larger consulting practice?

Finally Huron’s headquarters are located in Chicago with domestic and international (?) offices including those located in the following major metropolitan areas: Atlanta, Bangalore, Boston, Buffalo (N.Y.), Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Madison (Wis.), New York, Pensacola (Fla.), Portland (Ore.), Raleigh (N.C.), San Francisco, Toronto and Washington, D.C. Whereas Innosight is located in Boston (80%) of the team, Switzerland, and Singapore. The domestic US market perspective will clearly dominate, will it become all-dominating? Are we going to see a growing global footprint or a retreat into America?

I think the acquisition does come as a surprise.

I had not, in all honesty, heard of Huron but that is not so surprising because I am not so focused on Health Care, Hospitals and Medical Institutions, or the operational matters they have clearly built a strong business upon, specifically in the United States. So I initially wondered on the attraction between the two. Just simply why?

It boils down to a significant cash consideration for the partnership of Innosight to distribute, partly knowing being independent is a long hard slog. It is equally this growing recognition that “no industry is immune to disruption” including consulting, often working on perhaps outdated consulting models. It is also a crisis of revenue need for Huron, a publically quoted organization recognizing the deteriorating state of the US healthcare market.

There is this increasing realization that greater disruptive forces are coming into play, in the form of even more competitors, increased pressures on margins, a struggle to achieve the bigger projects in uncertain time and the debate on where to focus, vertically or horizontally.

A further choice of  managing all the forces of change domestically in the biggest consulting market of the USA at a significantly changing time politically, or taking out a global footprint further out becomes a real challenge to manage well and keep shareholders happy. Global footprints come at a far higher higher cost to utilization of assets, facing the growing, diverse and challenging consulting market where big seems to be getting bigger and more diverse, offering such scale and access to deep resource to call upon any time. Some tough decisions have to be made here beyond the aspirational.

In summary

Both Huron and Innosight trade on close client relationships once established, a focus on clear reputation, harnessing either industry experience or subject matter knowledge (disruption theory, innovation, business model change) to then deliver to the client’s explicit needs. in potentially more meaningful and focused ways as highly specialized.

Do they achieve a balanced portfolio of services with this deal? Perhaps no, they certainly fill or plug some essential gaps but the ability to really leverage this is the “real ability to straddle“, not just diverse client needs but the one that for me, makes or breaks this, the internal straddling required to integrate and leverage each of the parts into a cohesive whole. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The macro and micro forces are in play across all the consulting industry, it is not immune itself. So many questions are being raised on global uncertainties that will impact both the US & global focus for many. Many political and Government decisions will be forcing change but while this stays unclear, for many this is a growing time of uncertainty.  It is the ability to “focus out”, design and determine what are the real disruptive forces each client has to double down upon, will provide options and alternatives to thrive in this age of transformation.

As I said earlier that is a rare ability to harness the strategic patterns and design new innovation business models and this takes a specific skill set, which seems Huron are buying in this acquisition of Innosight. Time will tell on the acquisition success as the internal design of Huron to take advantage of these changing market forces does need further fleshing out. It needs a very different language of (client) design and articulation, I believe.

Hopefully, that clarity comes in the coming days in further investor and webcast calls.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

The post Possibly a Significant Shift in the Innovation Consulting World? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Jeffrey Phillips and I are launching our fourth collaboration together, this time we are exploring innovation ecosystems and the growing impact they are having in the business world through their ‘conecting and collaborating difference’ that can lead to vastly different final customer experiences.

I just want to reaffirm what he has written on this, originally over on his site.

This is what he wrote:

Save

The post Innovation, ecosystems, platforms and the promise of more to come first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

The community is encouraged to form, lead and build, taking ideas and thinking onto discovery journeys, seeking out and building on each other’s contributions.

The individual building blocks (like Lego) connect into a collective whole, that piece together, progressively being combined, to solve a problem, to frame something that leads to an answer of meeting the challenge initially set up.

The overriding need is to release the forces within the crowd, by seeking out and gaining their engagement and connection as something ‘they’ believe they can contribute into; as here lies the discovery of many, combining and ‘feeding off’ of each other, to change the existing into the preferred.

This is the third post on crowdsourcing that might offer some general background statements. Part one is here and part two is here.

Crowdsourcing can be powerful if harnessed well.

After a fairly detailed exploratory working through crowdsourcing in this mini-series, I wanted to offer my ‘take’, to help our thinking though in formulating clearer positions in this, to see its increasing value as contributing into an innovation management system.

Crowdsourcing does offer increasing value as a contributor into our innovation management system. It can open up a real rich potential of tapping into diverse opinions that were difficult to reach in the past. Yet it does, from my perspective, need thoughtfully working through in its application and the expected end results, as each will challenge the initial assumptions and that is exactly what you will be looking for, challenging the accepted knowns and revealing the many unknowns.

Crowdsourcing can become potentially part of your heavy-armoury for innovation discovery, a rich place to seek out better innovation, often radical solutions.

In what ways?

Crowdsourcing is allowing diverse communities to come together.

Crowdsourcing is allowing broader groups of people to come together, to gather around a challenge or problem and through the collective diversity of insights, experience or suggestions, offer solutions Without this collective wisdom it often would not be as possible to discover or piece together radically different answer or crack complex problems or determine pathways that would have remained undiscovered without this broad range of expertise and diversity of knowledge available through the use of our connected webs.

Today we are seeing a significant movement in crowdsourcing by the fact that many communities are forming through finding the independent voice, by collectively working on issues that would not have been as possible without  these crowdsourcing platforms. Today there is a growing participation happening on-line, forming around challenges, ideas, projects, non-profits, people and important social and business issues.

They are truly organic, feeding off all the contributions.

The use of crowdsourcing is growing as a vital part of discovering innovation that can transform through the tapping into a community and leverage their combined thinking, feeding off and building from each other.

The potential for discovering something radically different, solving a complex problem or simply collecting a rich array of potential innovation solutions can be discovered using crowdsourcing. It offers an exciting future, managed well.

The great thing is you (each of us participating) are the ones performing, participating and delivering your ideas, thoughts, solutions into a community of others wanting to build from this diverse thinking to contribute to the challenge offered. You are making a contribution that can potentially build into something radically different or determine a new path to explore. Participation and contribution become highly valued.

Others then begin to react to your contribution, they start reacting, responding, picking up on this surge of creative energy. Collectively you combine to begin to build something that answers a specific problem. It lets all of us in, to participate and contribute.

Getting to this point needs a lot of organising to set the scene, to provide the organisers with the connections, to see the possibilities, to allow ideas and suggestions to simply ‘flow’ and build.

Knowing what we are getting into becomes critical to want to jump in and take part

Designing the challenge becomes critical. We need to always know or believe it is crowd-worthy. It is these crowd-worthy challenges which trigger us into action.

It needs a significant thinking through if you want to delve into a real challenge; it can equally be a challenge that is simply one to ‘put out there’ to gather and illicit ‘quick’ opinions. Much of what we are doing is blurring and crowdsourcing is attempting to pick this apart to help.

Crowdsourcing comes in multiple guises

It took me some time to make these connections but these are all seeking out a digital crowd engagement. Crowdsourcing can be under social fundraising, collaborative consumption, customer co-creation, peer-to-peer economy, collective intelligence, open innovation and crowdfunding to name some, not all. They all are working within the crowd economy.

Dealing in the Crowd has become so fragmented, is this healthy or is it a present constraint?

The urgent need is to try to bring some organisation into the variables offered under the broad crowd umbrella. It can be a real labyrinth of working out what you are trying to achieve, knowing where to go to mount your crowdsourcing challenge and who to work with to believe you have the ‘best’ and most experienced platform that can manage it. There is so many ‘crowd’ platforms set around tasks, content, innovation, funding, learning, testing, media exploration, cause-related, design, competitions, services, property, lending / loans, citizen engagement and travel.

There is a directory of crowdsourcing that becomes an essential ‘go to’ place early on to get your bearings on what is out there and can help shape your thinking and needs.  It seems like there are new crowdfunding platforms launching literally every day, so establishing that your choice does have the ‘right’ track record, has been around long enough to build traction and a good reputation, becomes a major task in itself. Compare and contrast and read the case histories.

Ones that spring out for me as leading the ‘crowd pack’ are Kickstarter, Rockethub, Patreon, Peerbackers, Indiegogo, Gofundme as well as Crowdcast,  Quirky, Threadless and Mob4Hire.

Also, let us not forget Airbnb operates in this crowd economy. It is a very crowded (excuse the pun) and difficult place to start and figure out who to partner with. Finding the right partner to crowdsource with can clearly make or break any initiative so this validating needs to be undertaken well.

For me, Crowdsourcing can be beneficial in the following ways:

1. It can deliver an awareness and buzz that provides positive publicity and value to you.
2. It can qualify and test emerging ideas and the thinking through early enough to gain significant improvements or recognition that they lack scale appeal.
3. It can simply be a primary source of engagement with the public and stakeholders and influencers to receive invaluable feedback and confidence of message, direction, contribution and value.
4. It ‘puts out there’ crowd-based challenges that bring to the surface fresh insights and raises alternatives to adopting and adapting within your innovation activity.
5. It can ‘solve’ problems from those normal non-traditional sources that it would be hard to reach and engage without a higher level of commitment.
6. You can keep crowdsourcing specifically for worthy causes that build social responsibility identification and contribution.
7. Make it a core part of your innovation where you are seeking out breakthrough new innovations that can radically challenge and alter existing thinking.
8. You can use it for launching and evaluating a product / service / idea or news-worthy event.
9. It can help drive overall spend efficiencies and saving costs through obtaining feedback and suggestions on improvements of service and seeking out comparable approaches the crowd is more likely to be aware of.
10. It allows participates to engage, seek dialogue and have conversations that build a sense of identity and common purpose.

Crowdsourcing is straddling so much today but it can offer a really broad potential for ‘finding’ innovation

It needs recognition of the real potential in crowdsourcing, when structured and formed well can be highly valuable and part of our learning journey to solving problems and challenges that might not be solved by internal means alone.

The overcoming of both risk and depth of understanding of what you are trying to achieve in its use is hard work to work through. So is the art of engagement with the crowd.

The way forward: building, testing, probing, gaining experience and community understanding

I clearly would recommend you can build from small pilots towards larger scale, allowing those around to learn, value and appreciate the contribution that crowdsourcing can give us as a rich source of fresh ideas from broad or targeted communities, not easily obtained by any other means.

In Summary

“Crowdsourcing is probing the experience economy, wanting to understand authenticity, explore individual views, pushing to form new connections, curate and filter lots of different stuff. Much of what we are doing is blurring and crowdsourcing is attempting to pick this apart to help”.

Each crowd occasion will be different, that is its value, in attracting a highly diverse, hard to reach diversity to be drawn out of different communities, that needs encouraging in ways to contribute, sensing their voices are wanting to be heard and then being valued.

This tapping in and building on the diversity of thinking gives huge potential to solving so many different issues and challenges, for those willing to put in the organising commitment and who want to seek out the hidden value that lies within the crowd, in break-through ways.

****

Publishing note:  This blog post was part of one originally written on behalf of Hype and with their agreement, I have added this to my own site as well, separating it into different thoughts adding some revisions and further reflection.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

The post The Growing Value in that Crowd- Encourage it Out. first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Crowdsourcing does have a real potential in my mind but does seem to have some formidable issues to work through, to be well understood and managed.

Partnering with experts in this field will help overcome many of these barriers or at least have reassuring suggestions for resolving them. Let’s take a look at some of these here in this post.

Certainly, I think over time we will learn what works for us and what becomes leading practice, so we can become a lot clearer on crowdsourcing position and value to us, within our context, terms and circumstances.

That is why it will be really hard to cite ‘best practice’ as each crowdsourcing challenge will need different inputs and will yield very different outcomes for each unique challenge or problem raised.

Continuing with my exploring crowdsourcing. Part one is here. Within this second post, I want to offer some different thoughts to work through around the issues and concerns that came out in my researching the subject. There is a part three coming out in a few days to finish this mini-series off.

Let’s start here by raising some of the biggest concerns you might have over crowdsourcing?

• Will crowdsourcing provide predictable outcomes? No, everything you do to make for a good result still might not eventually deliver on this for all the preparation work you put in. You are literally in the hands of the ‘crowd’ and how they take to it or not.
• The management time to oversee crowd efforts will seemingly seem excessive at times but then you strike “pay dirt” and then suddenly it all seems worthwhile. Getting this clear in its resource needs and establishing the expectations needs working on, so you minimise pushback
• You may seem to get great answers but these might only come from a narrow representation of the population and they can miscue your results, if not spotted. Finding a way to counter this needs thinking through.
• The reactions between those placing the challenge and the crowd can turn from friendly to hostile if the management of the flow and continued acknowledgement and recognition of the contributions are not managed thoughtfully and given a constant ‘reality check’ back to the challenge to keep it always on scope, or adjusted to reflect the new thinking.
• Sometimes a crowdsourcing problem is hijacked by a party with a cause, or it becomes more of a competition between selected individuals that influence and shape the debate. You need to intervene and sometimes be firm in imaginative ways to allow other voices to be heard and not dampened down.
• The ability to build a greater collaboration gets ‘beaten’ back by these strongly held views that overshadow the other voices you are wanting here. Seek out all possible views, encourage diversity.
• How do you deal with potential plagiarism, intellectual property rights or those deliberately seeking funds or engagement for their means? Is there an opportunity for scandal or a potential for fraud? Be alert to these and have some of your own experts readily on hand to refer these and clarify. This is a very tricky area to handle.

You at least do need some awareness of these traps and have some part answer too in preparation, as they can come at you fast and furious or in stealth mode that catches you unaware.

Each of these mentioned above can be potential pitfalls that might put many off but this is a significant part of why partnering with established crowdsourcing platforms can help avoid these or resolve them.

Selecting good partners to help you with managing crowdsourcing becomes important

Just simply selecting a partner to help you in hosting, assisting and providing different services can be daunting but don’t let that put you off. You can research the choices fairly well, prior any engagement with a little researching.

With the good partners, you certainly can separate their rhetoric from their strengths by judging how they are building an increasing “governance of understanding”. They are working constantly on rules, language, technology, outreach, listening, content provision and focus intent, through a robust platform and analytical ability.

Those partners are emerging stronger as crowdsourcing grows to be a partner of choice, the venue the crowd wants to ‘surge’ towards as they sense and feel the platform helps them and the contracting parties genuinely wanting to extract the best out of the crowd by addressing the pitfalls and showing the ways they have resolved these in their emerging experiences and practices.

How are you thinking through a crowdsourcing initiative?

There is a host of issues to think through. Some of these are real challenges but you need some ‘reasonable’ semblance of understanding around these often ‘knotty’ issues:

• Resource Focus – not being able to align resources, culture and systems to drive interest.
• Technology – not having the right platform to host the activity or the bandwidth, to handle the flows both in and then back out then lacking a clear analytical capability to manage and build from this as a  set of data insights.
• Listening – not listening enough, not paying consistent attention but staying tuned-out and lacking the ability to respond, and build quickly enough on a promising idea to draw out more contributions from the community.
• Content – not providing frequent and interesting content to build, feed off and interact with. Not clarifying or framing enough at the beginning or along the way.
• Constrained Outreach – not broad enough, constrained in resources, feedback or reaction so it quickly ‘dies’ as it is not ‘dynamic’ enough to gain the attention and attract a representative crowd so the result delivers poor value back.
• Lacking a crowdsourcing culture – without dedicated passion within the group that is there driving the effort, or lacking the knowledge to fuel and build from incoming knowledge ‘just enough’ to build and connect this further stops the build. A climate of trust comes from this dedication and empowerment, and openly engaging within communities.
• Lacking community management – which has to span initla resourcing, hosting, engagement, dialogues, responding to conversations at different peak and lull periods requires a strong resource commitment plan.
• Rules and Governance that are not strong enough in their guidelines for all within the community to understand where the lines are and might become crossed. Or having experience in handling fast flowing legal, regulatory and management oversight issues, or simply knowing when to quickly refer these to those that can decide.
• A lack of comprehensive tools – to provide all the necessary features to attract, tap into depth and enable customer engagement and feeling of contributions being read, and actively worked upon.

Then you have the internal ones to think through

How are you going to attract in the broader management understanding within your organisation in accepting this activity to achieve a greater engagement through crowdsourcing techniques to tap into the wisdom that lies within?

For instance, before you mount any internal crowdsourcing you need to have thought through different issues to have some good answers to some of the potential pitfalls or of barriers that might be raised on crowdsourcing:

• Not being able to internalize the benefits and bring those inside the organisation to yield a tangible ‘commercial’ or problem solved, the ideas remain just simply ideas.
• The challenge although intellectually interesting, lacks the strategic focus that ties this to solving the business or social need specifically.
• The lack of incentives both to those participating and in rewarding for the results ‘kills’ the end result.
• Poor measurements that were unable to track, monitor and access success as the return on the investment limit any momentum going forward.
• In all your determination to structure the crowd activity, you can overlook that important part of a sense of identity. You fail to present your business in a real, human, personable and trustworthy way and leave it too vague and open enough, to not ‘draw-in’ as you would have liked.

Reading these I am sure it seems a daunting list but getting some sense or feeling towards each of these allows for a stronger result.

Then, we have the internal obstacles to overcome or address

They include:

1. Will the organisation adopt crowdsourcing as valuable to have? What silo’s of ‘threat’ need addressing?
2. Will there really be enough staff to manage this and all the demands placed on them to be engaged, open and responsive to those outside contributing in?
3. The senior managers that worry over a possible set of perceived risks, moving reluctantly from a status quo or a sense of losing control. How do you address these real concerns?
4. Suddenly having challenges or problems moving from the inside to the outside has to be managed, will the company culture accept this desire to be open enough on issues, challenges or problems it wants to find solutions to without ‘tipping its hat’ to the competition?
5. A sudden flow of ideas coming in will mean more legal, regulatory and management engagement than normal as the crowd may expect a fast reaction, and they won’t recognise the internal hurdles or considerations involved. This becomes part of crowd management.
6. The sudden availability of technical skills or expertise, ready for a good honest dialogue often puts those experts on the spot, this needs handling carefully.
7. Many crowdsourcing initiatives fail, you need to internally gain acceptance that this can happen and certainly will. You need to condition acceptance if they appreciate the real potential of the “raw” value potential. It is like VC investing, one big win dwarfs the losses of many promising ideas that did not make it but you needed seeding to try.

Launching a crowd initiative can have significant ‘added’ benefits

With all the obstacles, barriers and issues presented here, it might make you wonder if crowdsourcing is worth the effort. Clearly, crowdsourcing is not for everyone. Diving straight in might seem a great idea but the gradual learning approach by building scale and size in the challenge or problem to solve is a preferred route in my opinion.

Crowdsourcing does seem to have a potential for delivering a different viewpoint on solving challenges, issues and complex problems but does have some formidable issues to be well  thought through.

I hope this ‘list of lists’ helps prompt you to become aware, to think about and attempt to work through these so you are in good shape to get real value out of your crowdsourcing engagements that all can value, extract something and appreciate.

A final post on crowdsourcing is next up in a few days time. Part one is here “Evaluating crowdsourcing – offering a bright future”

The post So Are You Thinking Crowdsourcing? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Crowdsourcing does have both the potential to point towards disrupting possibilities, extends the concept of open innovation into a wider source of participation from a diverse community not possible to reach by other means as effectively. It can simply connect a ‘crowd’ of people to a common purpose. All in all, if applied carefully it can provide you with a leading edge of innovation knowledge and insight.

I wanted to step back a little and take a more measured look at crowdsourcing over three posts. This is part one.

Crowdsourcing must be a powerful concept then?

Potentially the answer is yes, yet it does come with many “buts” that need the understanding to extract the value of the crowd and that can become complicated. There are a growing number of experts or specialised resources that can ‘host’ your crowd challenge but you need to be clear on what you are attempting and be reassured those that you work with do have the expertise they claim.

According to different sources the ‘crowd economy’ has been growing 50 to 70% per year in the last two years but admittedly from a low base. Will it continue to grow at these rates or even more? I believe the chances are more, yet this will be determined by those that understand and learn the practices, pitfalls and levers to this, and that is going to be decided by organizations determined to put in the time and dedicated resources into learning, so they can translate the “emerging practices” into their practices that provide value, impact and returns.

Crowdsourcing does have a sound potential to compliment or simply become your principal source of turning concepts and challenges into solid ideas that do have an impact. It certainly has its place alongside the reliance on simply internally generated ideas but crowdsourcing needs to be well understood and have its own process to work through.

Is the crowd economy the way of the future?

Is it faster, potentially lower costs than the alternatives of discovery but can sometimes generate overwhelming data. The insights or real nuggets need teasing out and determining.

What do you gain that is additional to what you are currently doing?

The top line metrics to begin thinking this through lie in determining the impact you are looking for, understanding the reach potential and different engagement possibilities, determine and ensure there is a level of satisfaction to all those that participate, clarify the cost of any such implementation / initiative in setting up, learning and translating into commercial outcomes  and getting a good sense of your ability to deliver on all those great new ideas in resources, time and cost.

Every conversation, challenge, event and community building is likely to be different and that lack of the ability to have a repeating process will certainly drive the cost of origination a lot higher. That needs understanding, and convincing those above that the setup and origination costs for each crowdsourcing challenge or project are going to contain a fair amount of the costing. We will go into that in a future post covering different challenges today.

A definition of crowdsourcing that does seem right to me.

I like this extract from the New York Times:

“Crowdsourcing is the practice of engaging a ‘crowd’ or group for a common goal- often innovation, problem-solving or efficiency. Crowdsourcing can take place on many different levels and across various industries (social and government). Thanks to our growing connectivity, it is now easier than ever for individuals to collectively contribute- whether with ideas, time, expertise or funds- to a project or cause. This collective mobilisation is crowdsourcing”

They go on to say:

“This phenomenon can provide organisations with access to new ideas and solutions, deeper consumer engagement, opportunities for co-creation, optimisation of tasks, and reduced costs. The internet and social media have brought organisations closer to stakeholders, laying the groundwork for new ways of collaborating and creating value together like never before. The approach is being embraced:

“Crowds are a hit. Millions of people, connected by the internet, are contributing ideas and information to projects big and small. Crowdsourcing, as it is called, is helping to solve tricky problems and providing localised information. And with the right knowledge, contributing to the crowd- and using its wisdom- is easier than ever”

So where are you on the crowd continuum? Is it to simply make money, to produce better results or help create a better world or are you bravely attempting all three?

What are the top objectives for launching a crowd venture?

I’ve looked at a fair number of these top objectives but CrowdsourcingWeek.com offers these six.

1) Crowdsourcing solves problems from non-traditional sources,

2) it funds new ideas and businesses,

3) identifies crowd-based insights to surface new perspectives,

4) delivers awareness, publicity and buzz value,

5) it can launch a product / service / idea or news and finally

6) it can create breakthrough innovation.

So where is this crowdsourcing movement heading?

Again there are plenty of thoughts and suggestions. Firstly we have the bigger “meta” trends or present phenomena driving much of our thinking.

The constant rise of social networks and the media, the equal rise of the entrepreneurial, startup culture is feeding this need for lower cost, but extracting greater insights. The reduction in mass marketing effectiveness, a tightening up of capital and limited resources drives even more the efficiencies expected from our organizations and crowdsourcing makes up with gaining more abilities for agility, understanding and gaining evidence of shifts that are taking place faster than traditional research techniques can provide as trends important to your specific issues you need solutions for.

Equally, the authenticity, transparency, trust and credibility are all changing. There is a rise of the independent voice, free agents, opinion shapers, independent parties who can now greatly influence outcomes than ever before. Users are generating more content and insights that are affecting enterprises and how what and why products, service and often the business model has to be constantly checked, refreshed and aligned. Lastly, here you have a generation ‘thing’ where the Gen Y seem to be significantly different than past generations and that needs greater understanding to account for.

We are seeing increasing calls for greater speed, increased customization, engagement, authenticity, the different view on value, functionality. The monetization needs greater understanding, security and vested interests need greater collaboration and increased connections. It is a global, connected, converging world that needs a constant attention to curation, filtering and context relating than ever.

We need to understand and attempt to manage in this rapidly changing environment.

Crowdsourcing is emerging and still has controversial emotions and questions

In this opening post on establishing a top-level clarity on crowdsourcing, I’d like to offer these question we need to raise, explore and find answers too. In the second part of this post, we’ll see what answers we have, or just admit they are still out there needing solutions or open to more discussion.

These are:

1. There needs to be a more central source of reference around crowdsourcing. Until we achieve this it will remain fragmented and silo’s of knowledge, experience and leading practice remains buried from the majority and the individual learning curve, and will prevent crowdsourcing to become mainstream.
2. There are still very few people inside organisations who really understand all the differences, value and danger points on how crowd collaborations really work.
3. Those within the developing world are likely to embrace crowdsourcing faster than the developed world as they can sense a real competitive advantage.
4. We will need to find and establish better ways to manage and curate crowd-based efforts than we have available to us now.Will these be through specialised organisations or developed on a backbone of internal practices and experience tapping into a cloud-based set of solutions you “grab and string” together to meet specific challenges?
5. Will larger companies accelerate their investments in the crowd economy on growing recognition of its valuable part to play in growth and innovation, or will they remain laggards to smaller companies better positioned to extract and invest in crowd techniques, as they tap into these low-cost solutions to manage understanding and engagement on a global scale, one that is unable to be achieved without the IoT and low cost of technology?

In the next post, we will explore a host of current issues

We need to draw out numerous concerns, constraints, obstacles and build the case towards embracing crowdsourcing in more significant ways. We will look at current concerns, obstacles, and challenges, as well as lay out a thinking-through process, describe valuable attributes and the varied choices we need to consider.

*****

Publishing note:  This blog post was originally written on behalf of Hype and with their agreement, I have added this to my own site as well but with some limited updates and changes.

The post Evaluating Crowdsourcing – offering a bright future? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.