It often challenges the status quo and can on certain occasions, potentially challenge the stated strategic goals as those ‘disruptive forces’ have not been addressed radically enough. Innovation often “asks” difficult questions of ourselves.

We keep asking a lot of innovators but consistently restrain them or starve them of essential resources, at the critical times they need them. We seem to get in the way of blocking innovation so it can’t be seen to align with the goals or vision of the organization.

We keep extorting innovators to raise their game, constantly trying to shape their work so it can fit. We are constantly encouraging innovators to abandon their personal judgments, open themselves up to different possibilities to try and make it “fit” with what we have got or already invested into.

We ask innovators to keep resolute and keep trying, keep pushing the boundaries, challenging and sometimes disrupting the established practices and processes, organizations like to keep in place but this is a very ‘uneasy’ and needs courage, belief but most of all alignment. Innovators need to feel confident they are fully supported and encouraged. They need empowering.

The innovator is constantly dealing with ambiguity, managing a far more dynamic process of knowledge learning and investigating. Often this is in direct conflict or tension with the majority of the organizations need to extract the most efficiencies and effectiveness out of the established systems and processes.

Strategic design often does not single out innovation as different, it expects it to comply. It is this lack of recognition that causes much of the misalignment, as it does not conform to the norm.

Yet strategy and innovation have much in common. They are both dealing with uncertainties, attempting to quantify uncertainties and unknowns, working towards a future state that advances the business by identifying and capturing new opportunities.

This is where cascading helps with alignment- consider a model

To achieve alignment, a cascade of better choices is needed that keeps mapping back to innovation activities and strategic need.

This calls for the need for a choice-cascade model where understanding flows through aligned cascading choices. Its aim is to empower firstly, by promoting and encouraging different levels of sound or best judgment, to enable individual choices, so as to allow for a ‘choice-maker’ to push this back upstream. Roger Martin and Hilary Austen have suggested “the art of integrative thinking”.

Choice options cascade down from the higher-order choices. These should set the context for and constrain (help in defining) lower-order choices.

Choices become inter-related and need to fit context and constraints from this higher-level. If there is difficulty in the fit, then the higher order needs urgently revisiting, hence the cascading effect is a constant, dynamic two-way flow.

Today, if we recognize change is a constant, flowing and rapidly changing part of how we do business, by having in place this choice cascading model you can unfreeze part of a strategy that is not ‘aligning’ with a changing world. It makes the decision-making process more dynamic and allows for greater contribution to strategic choices and the innovation process can equally respond and align on a far quicker, adaptive path.

Choice-cascade needs structure and operating principles

Choice makers within this model need to be explicit in the why:

1. Explain the choice that has been made and the explicit rationale behind it
2. Explicitly identify the next downstream choice to make it a joint venture
3. Assist in making the downstream choice happen explicitly
4. Commit to revisiting and modifying the choice based on explicit downstream feedback

To move towards choices that can outline desired outcomes and describe ways and means to achieve them allows for this alignment and flow of understanding.

A cascade must move in both directions

Water flows down but it is the  ‘pushing back’ provides this feedback cascade, where the real fate of change and realization resides is in recognition and ongoing dialogues. To cascade back, clarity or questioning needs a mechanism or process to return to the top. You gain alignment through this method of cascading both up and down organizations in deliberate ways. We are seeking this alignment constantly, it is the lightning rod that transmits the energy to gain fusion.

To encourage alignment, they need to be explicitly linked to key desired behaviors, determined by the needs of the individual organization. Alignment needs to equally map back to a high consistency in core values expected in practicing, as important. I would suggest a good innovation governance design significantly helps this. This is where building the innovation culture, the environment it works within and the climate that is encouraged prompts the dialogue, conversation, and engagement.

Underpinning this alignment within the Cascade’s design and identification, you equally build a ‘belief’ audit. Its aim is to uncover where alignment is achieved, misunderstood and equally highlights where it needs a better bridging mechanism and most importantly, where there is critical misalignment to be addressed at a higher level. This belief audit strengthens the choice-cascade model as it opens up the dialogue surrounding innovation and its strategic (or operational only) alignment.

How can innovation get squared away with strategy?

As I mentioned earlier it is getting innovation into this ‘choice mentality’ on where to play and what seems to be the real wins by providing as much understanding of the judgment of why it contributes to the strategic goals. You align it or ‘flag’ it. To get innovation to align you need to discuss a whole array of gaps. It needs dialogues, engagement and a clear, cohesive set of ‘shared’ objectives of what innovation can make a contribution and deliver a difference.

Clearly, if you lack this deep understanding of how the organization’s strategy was brought together, the thinking behind it, then innovation will often fall short in delivery, as it can’t have enough of the understanding to be aligned. Making hard choices is tied to aspirations of knowing where you want to place your bets, to win.

Often it is within the strategies lies the potential new spaces to play. Strategy informs innovation. It becomes the catalyst of where-to-play and how-to-win and with this, you are giving innovators a better chance to deliver back concepts for those hard choices to be made, designed around innovate concepts that align and feeds the strategic design with winning designs

Having a cascading model in place allows that essential ‘flow’ that connects innovation to strategy but more importantly becomes the connecting point for all within the organization to identify with and…..align too.

Contact me if you would like to learn more.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

The post Innovation has a hard job to align first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Often it is within the strategies that should be outlined, lies the potential new spaces to play for innovation’s design. Yet how often do we fail to connect the innovation’s we design and execute specifically aligned to the strategic need?

We somehow seem to stay locked in the ‘here and now’ constantly repeating and refining the known and established within our domain of responsibility. Is this because innovation is not at the core of the business as it should be? Often we are inherently resisting to exploring change as it becomes risky and far more demanding. A good strategy, well outlined should encourage innovation and gain engagement but it can equally determine how we break down our imposed boundaries by its strategic intent, to encourage exploring and extending on what we know into the what we need to know. Strategic intent informs innovation.

If you have a clear strategic understanding of the needs of the business you are getting more of the understanding of where-to-play and how-to-win in your innovation activities and market investment. It is making these strategic connections that is giving innovators a better chance to deliver back concepts that offer alignment to this strategic need. Investing in this understanding and alignment should never be understated. The time invested, allows for the innovation investments to do their part in supporting the business and feeding it with the growth options required, or highlighting where the possible gaps might be, for additional investment or M&A activity, to accelerate this and bring-in fresh innovating momentum.

We need to close down the issue that Innovation is full of open interpretation by purposeful design

How often have we heard “innovation is important for our future success” but when this is probed deeper there is a huge dissatisfaction on its performance or contribution at all levels within organizations, why is that? Where does the problem lie? I am sure we all have multiple suggestions, some perhaps radical in the extreme but most are confirming this growing frustration with innovation’s performance yet not fully pointing to the underlying cause. This suggests that there are multiple failure points within the management of innovation.

One absolute critical one that needs resolution is achieving alignment and engagement of innovation understanding throughout the organization. It is one of the biggest challenges to resolve, it takes hard coordinating work to sort out of numerous amount of problems that need rectifying.

Frustrations abound up and down the Organization.

Clearly one critical part of this present frustration is a seemingly lack of alignment between the organizations strategic goals and its mission and how innovation is expected to contribute, so as to fuel the growth and deliver many of the essential parts of the strategic need. Often it is left far too open or unclear for individual interpretation. It is often when we have uncertainly, opportunism steps in and attempts to fill the space. Innovation needs a much stronger alignment to strategy, they need connecting far better. One suggestion here is the adoption of the choice cascade model, discussed later as part of the suggested solution.

One of the basic troubles increasingly today is we are not in the world of stable markets, we are seeing increasing competitive intensity and challenges to market definitions that are radically altering how we proceed. Technology has become both the enabler and the disruptor to this. We are ‘reacting’ far more in knee-jerk ways to resolve a sudden crisis and look increasingly towards fast innovation solutions to fill the gap. Some of these solutions create ‘knock.-on’ effects and create a mismatch between solving an interim problem and causing disruption to the longer-term direction.  They also can distract resources away from more critical solutions to solve underlying growth issues within the organization.

This is why I also highly recommend the three horizon framework as part of this discipline of managing the ‘needs of today’ with the strategy of having a thoughtful portfolio of options for the future that requires this different horizon thinking.

Of course much in the future has no boundaries we can determine and evaluate against and this gives high levels of uncertainty but it can be reduced, by being driven by a clearer clarity of purpose or intent. It is this ‘clarity of purpose’ that innovation needs to ‘track, mirror and explore’. If we keep ‘reacting’ constantly to the present we might never arrive at the future.

The strategic purpose ‘informs’ and I think we all have this growing recognition that today’s business model will not remain viable for long periods, as we operate increasingly in fluid and volitile conditions, that require constant adjustment and response. This means our innovation resources must align far more to the direction seen or looks reasonably plausible and ‘shape and form’ around this. Foresight should be governed by beliefs about the future and innovation should be driven in this direction but always with a word of caution, that we equally have to always recognize that the future is a moving target. It is beholden on innovation to explore and exploit this, to pursue an evolutionary path towards understanding and validation.

Taking action in designing your innovation alignment

“Strategy informs”. Knowing where to place your innovation thinking becomes critical; it is knowing where the leadership places its importance, its ‘bets to win’. This might be in having the need for a richer user engagement experience, a more robust futurist product portfolio to test, learn and explore potential options. It can be where it plans to invest it’s technology options to leverage knowledge.

We have to keep asking those essential questions that link strategy and innovation in understanding. It becomes important to know if the growth is going to come through acquisition of capabilities and competencies that fill critical gaps. What are those ‘perceived’ gaps? Can they be filled by shifting the innovation competencies, capabilities or capacities? If you are not ‘informed’ by strategy, you are simply ‘second guessing’ and here is where alignment breaks down by not having this understanding. Often the designers of strategy omit the essential details of “how we believe we will get there” and what are the primary resource levers to commit into this.

You need to know what type of company ‘we are’ today and does it need to change: are you integrators, leader, laggards, or best in class, pioneers, or fast copiers. This recognition equially ‘inform’ much of the innovation activity. What types of business model are you working towards, where is the scope to expand and explore from the innovation perspective? What processes and structures would then need to be in place to compliment and align to the strategic aspirations or positioning stated?

These answers become the foundation that aligns strategy direction with innovation activity.

These can only come from formulating strategic thinking between the strategy of the organization (its goals, mission and visions) and innovation, for it to be directed in its efforts to contribute to these aims and growth aspirations.

Then the other, often the unspoken silent part, of any strategic thinking that needs to be drawn out, actually revolves around the ‘creative destruction’ being faced, externally and internally. It indicates the prevalence of change and opens the dialogue up on how innovation will respond to this. Often boards remain in denial or lack the essential relevant understanding of the changes occurring and do not address change or transformation as strongly as they should in any strategic design. Innovation then has a really hard time to respond.

This is the way I recommend to set about this alignment to build an Innovation Master Plan.

It is structured and designed and externally facilitated. Facilitation becomes critical as the external provider can ‘draw out’ all the different views, often highly diverging, where predudices and opinions abound, around innovation. Opinions differ so much, you need to work through divergence to then seek the convergence. It is only when you get a ‘collective view’ you can begin to get that greater alignment of strategic and innovation activities

Here is how I suggest you might set about alignment….

Firstly I have written explicitly on the Executive Innovation Work Mat, making the compelling case and one outline of the framework offering a further alignment view,  as I believe this Work Mat approach becomes a critical framework to communicate the fit of innovation and strategy.  It becomes the “living” innovation document to refer too, engagement with (and improve). I co-devolped this executive innovation work mat with Jeffrey Phillips from Ovo Innovation.

We need to work through The Critical Value Propositions of the Three Horizon Methodology (link to download paper) to clarify our portfolio of options, in the present and in the future.

Within that Innovation Work Mat approach it is designed to allow engagement from the top to communicate and cascade down the organizations, to allow for the growing understanding of how and where innovation fits and what is provided to support this. I believe the “cascading effect” becomes critical to success and often missed out in any innovation thinking This design of the Work Mat allows for a greater connected design of innovation.

Innovation needs alignment- Resources to refer too.

Available is a short presentation on this innovation alignment approach to the choice cascade view, as used in the Executive Innovation Work Mat Framework. Here is a download to its cascading effect approach: Cascading Choices for Greater Alignment (a PDF file)

Exploring the Executive Innovation Work Mat I have equally set up a dedicated section on the Work Mat  under “insights and thinking” as “booklets” in its design and value on each of its components. So can you explore the three horizons here and relate to it further, as essential for managing innovation in multiple ways.

Workshops on the Executive Innovation Work Mat can be delivered as outlined in this suggestion one: (Intervention Approach Work Mat 2017). Each Workshop always has some level of unique design, as each organization is on its own journey of innovation understanding. The framework and its seven components is built accordingly to bring it together as an integrated ‘whole’.

By contacting the writer you can discuss this further as it is designed to bring strategic choice and innovation together in a more cohesive way. It aligns, communicates and engages but it is how we set about this, will determine its potential for achieving greater success and ‘connected’ understanding.

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

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

The post The Essential Connection Between Strategy and Innovation first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

An increased focus on innovation as a consistent discipline requires significant reflection on what needs changing, what impact this change will have and how do we proceed to implement it. This requires senior management attention because of the significant organisational impact.

The leadership within an organisation provide the linkage into the strategy, provide the framework and set this in the context of the vision and goals needed to be achieved. You, as the innovator, seek out the synergies between strategy and innovation, between innovation and capabilities, between culture, the environment, the process, structure and routines and how it all should be governed.

The compelling value is in having an integrated innovation framework

Having an integrated innovation framework can be summarised:

• The framework or work mat moderates innovation and goes much towards reducing the multiple interpretations and the variety of initiatives often described or justified as innovative but all too often significantly missing the strategic mark.

• There is an overwhelming argument that most people within the organisation and those you are partnering with, would appreciate a greater understanding of the core concepts, principles and direction that their innovation activity should take. To understand what is valued, essential to defend, promote and improve. To clarify what is highly strategic, well describe and articulated to ‘form’ around, helps innovation to perform its required task of delivering new growth that aligns with the strategic needs.

• By having this work mat approach you can frame a formal set of mechanisms and principles for innovation to rise in quality. For instance, in articulating that the selection of high potential concepts are highly valued and prized, and will certainly get ring-fenced and be given special attention, does radically alter the innovation work-to-be-done within any organisation.

• By having this strategic and systematic approach does give a clear ‘signal’ that ‘we’ need to be more of an innovation-orientated organisation. A framework that is offering the signposts and path-finding points in vision, in proving the mechanisms for a whole innovation system transformation, in documentation and by engaging in constant discussions about innovation and its alignment to strategy, you move from ‘aspiration’ into gaining that ‘attraction power’ to identification. You offer a fresh dynamic stock for innovation to feed on.

• The approach of the Executive Innovation Work Mat is to turn it into a living, evolving and dynamic framework, one that ‘cascades up and down the organisation’ so it becomes the reference point, the strategic source that builds the common language of understanding, offers the communicating mechanism and determines the context.

Delivering an integrated framework would be for many, a strategy that is innovative in itself.

The frames intent, its very nature, is that it promotes excitement, growing identification and the chance to debate innovation in a broader, more comprehensive framework. By taking this integrated innovation approach it offers clarification, for those wanting to be involved in the growth and future of the organisation, so they gain a greater identification and sense of involvement. This ‘flow’ and exploring provides a constant input and draws out in the dialogue it promotes, the specific clarification to help all to recognise, associate and contribute in improving innovation activities that align far more.

An integrated approach can significantly provide the support to the people involved in innovating to help build their ability to execute in a cohesive way the innovation activity that contributes to the strategic innovation goals. It provides the framing opportunity for that elusive alignment that is often missing in today’s organisations for innovation to truly align to the corporate goals, aspirations and strategic intent.

• The Work Mat methodology was jointly developed by Jeffrey Phillips at Ovo Innovation and myself, through Agility Innovation Specialists and it provides a powerful solution to alignment and identification between an organisations strategy, its innovation activity and how it integrates and relates for everyone involved.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

The post Making a compelling business case for an integrated innovation framework first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

All too often strategy is not influencing the behaviours and outcomes around innovation, it is simply allowing them to be left to chance.

Innovation is being ‘pushed down’ the organisation for others to interpret and offer their answers. They execute to their own understanding and often the innovations end up as not strategically aligned.

That is plainly wrong, not knowing the strategic objectives it is one of the principle causes of innovation failure and requires fixing.

This poor strategic understanding creates a lack of alignment and directing innovation. If an organisation lacks top leadership engagement it becomes, for many, the reason why they seem to just simply ‘limp’ along in their innovation activity, delivering ‘simply’ incremental outcomes. The more radical innovations can never emerge if these do not have the close alignment to the Corporate vision or objectives and leadership engagement..

It is often ironic that those in leadership positions start expressing their disappointment over final innovation results, yet often the answer simply lies more often than not in their own hands to resolve. Top leadership in organisations need to shape innovation and be more involved in its strategic design.

We need to resolve this innovation leadership gap of misunderstanding. We need to explain what their essential place is and provide the strategic frame to allow it to be understood. Then the contribution for innovation might be ‘allowed’ to deliver far more on its potential as it achieves that greater strategic alignment.

Innovation requires a critical senior executive focus?

As innovation becomes a more consistent requirement rather than an occasional exercise, it must align to strategic goals and become part of the planning and execution cycle.  An increased focus on innovation as a consistent discipline requires significant reflection on what needs changing, what impact this change will have and how do we proceed to implement it. This requires senior management attention because of the significant organisational impact.

This refocus of strategy and implementation takes time and may require rethinking or reworking some existing strategies, plans, structure or culture, or may require the development of new structures and skills.  Our recommended approach will trigger the necessary engagement in this essential set of strategic decisions that cannot be delegated down the organization.

Innovation needs a well-considered framework

Like any other important corporate initiative, innovation requires a carefully considered framework, otherwise, the efforts required to deliver innovation will suffer, resulting in sporadic, unsatisfactory outcomes. Is incremental innovation the best you can hope for? Innovation, in all its forms, incremental, distinctive, radical or transformational needs the full support and engagement of senior management and requires defined strategic goals, structural frameworks and an engaged corporate culture.

While the tactical work of innovation is accomplished by innovation teams throughout the organisation, your executive team needs to clearly establish the climate and the frameworks that will enable your innovators. This requires a clear articulation of strategy and the implementation of a framework that provides the essential building blocks for the organisation to work within.

You provide the linkage into the strategy, provide the framework and set this in the context of the vision and goals needed to be achieved.

You seek out the synergies between strategy and innovation, between innovation and capabilities, between culture, the environment, the process, structure and routines and how it all should be governed.

Today many organisations presently find themselves locked in the innovation incremental trap. Real growth needs a more radical approach from innovation. Incremental innovation often gives a very limited degree of security as others quickly copy or push this just a little bit further, so you end up chasing instead of making those leaps that give clear competitive space where that ‘advantage’ can become a sustaining one.

Delivering an integrated framework would be for many, a strategy that is innovative in itself.

The frames intent, its very nature, is that it promotes excitement, growing identification and the chance to debate innovation in a broader, more comprehensive framework. By taking this integrated innovation approach it offers clarification, for those wanting to be involved in the growth and future of the organisation to gain identification, provide input and draw out the specific clarification to help them contribute.

An integrated approach can significantly provide the support to the people involved in innovating to help build their ability to execute in a cohesive way the innovation activity that contributes to the strategic innovation goals. It provides the framing opportunity for that elusive alignment that is often missing in today’s organisations

There is considerable value in exploring and determining your organization’s integrated innovation framework and this can come through a greater encouragement to wrestle with innovation’s parts and frame this through the Executive Innovation Work Mat.

**Recently I wrote an extensive series of postings on the Executive Innovation Work Mat for the Hype Innovation Blog, just put in the search box “Work Mat” and take a read.

The post I keep arguing we all need to seek out innovation alignment first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Research shows a lack of engagement around innovation by non-managers, also there are claims through studies that 7 out of 10 of employees do not understand how they can make a worthwhile contribution.

The cynicism around innovation has turned it into nothing more than a buzzword for many, not taken with the seriousness that it really deserves for sustaining growth within organizations and achieving broader engagement to make this happen.

Innovation is treated as more the opportunity taken when it fits and works, often toned down when it does not. There is often a total lack of sustaining strategic commitment to innovation.It is just not integrated into the core of the organization.

Even at the top there is a growing gap of translating and aligning innovation that many of the middle to senior managers struggle with articulating where innovation and strategy fit within the wider corporate goals. Innovation lacks a clear identifying mechanism for all to ‘pull towards’. To “connect” all within the organization with the intent, purpose, conditions and goals of innovation we need to align all the factors associated with innovation.

Some three years back I worked in collaboration with Jeffrey Philips of Ovo Innovation to build an integrated innovation framework, that is designed as a strategic part of the corporate boards’ need to deliver and cascade down the organization. The first intent was to bridge this innovation leadership gap, it needed to gain the leaderships attention that they needed to address this; they were the very people allowing a gap of critical understanding to how innovation fitted into the organizations plans.

I am repeating part of our thinking at that time here and I have specifically pulled out the importance of the leadership’s involvement as this should be where the integrated innovation framework should be designed, formulated and debated.

We called this integrated framework the Executive Innovation Work Mat

The concept of a Work Mat is to ‘wrestle’ over it, to debate and then deliver a formal workout methodology that provides the essential framing desired to be understood throughout the organization to align the innovation activities as much as possible to the strategic direction and goals. It provides the basis for a well-articulated innovation framework for the organization to work from.

Explaining the Executive Innovation Work Mat briefly

The Executive Innovation Work Mat approach has seven domains that need specifically describing by the leadership of an organization for innovation alignment.

These are to achieve a clear Strategic Alignment (domain one) as well as develop the context, the communication techniques and encourage an emerging common language (domain two).

Then we discuss the need for having the appropriate Structure, Processes and Functional design (domain three) and the importance of Governance (domain four).

The next two domains are Culture (domain 5) and the Environment (domain 6) and why these need to be worked through.

Finally we have the domain where People align with the motivations and measures (domain 7) for relating and delivering the appropriate innovation to align around this integrated innovation framework.

The intent is to reduce the gaps between innovation and the goals of the organization

It continues to amaze me, no, actually it is depressing, that although our business leaders constantly confirm that innovation is in their top three priorities, they stay stubbornly disengaged in facilitating this across their organizations, especially the larger ones, it is delegated down and that is a huge mistake.

It is our senior leaders within organizations that have the ability to:
• link innovation to strategy, and
• create focus, engagement and passion for innovation, and
• direct funds and resources to good innovation programs, and
• speed good ideas to market as new business models, products and services, and
• ensure the processes and relevant metrics exist so innovation is sustainable and integrated.

In mid-sized and large companies, leadership and engagement from CEOs and senior executives are vital to achieve innovation success and a common sense of identity. We hear leaders want innovation to happen, that what is more consistently, more purposefully and with better result but don’t understand their enabling role in making this happen.

The absence of a well-articulated innovation strategy is by far the most important constraint for companies to reach their innovation targets.

If an organization has no explicit innovation strategy and fails to align this across the organization, then is it so unexpected that innovation continues to disappoint us, failing to deliver into the goals that consistently are developed and circulated across the organization?

Until we resolve this major gap in innovation alignment we hold innovation back

The consequences of the gap are significant:

• Poor execution of innovation goals;
• Failure to achieve strategic goals;
• Limited organizational design to sustain innovation;
• The growth of disbelief or cynicism when innovation isn’t pursued.

Senior Executives fail to fill this vital role for articulating the innovation journey

Often it is the case senior executives fail when they:

• are unaware their vision needs to be framed into a compelling message;
• don’t understand the importance of their role in communicating and motivating;
• miss articulating the value, importance and benefits to both the company and the individual;
• don’t resolve the ‘hearts and minds’ in engagement that innovation requires;
• are unable to set out an overall framework for innovation and define its value creation;
• delegate the role to others who don’t have the power to execute and compromise too readily;
• are constrained in their role due to time pressures and/or competing initiatives;
• fail to shape, inspire or clarify the necessary linkages and synergies across the company.

Understanding the importance of innovation, and the barriers that innovation will encounter, helps define key activities an innovation senior executive must undertake, and what he or she must do to fill the role effectively. This leads to an important question: if innovation is strategically important, and if engaged senior executives are critical to innovation success,

Innovation can be especially challenging because it is so unfamiliar, often intangible, so potentially disruptive, full of possible risk and uncertainty and yet so important. It’s very nature, challenging all that is predictable, planned and complying to effective, repeatable and efficient processes and methods requires this top management’s attention.

Innovation requires change that can impact the status quo and disrupt the firm’s ability to maintain a constant focus on efficiency and effectiveness to achieve short-term financial goals. It can be an internal disruptor requiring different thinking, metrics and risk-evaluations. It is often hard to switch internal mindsets from ‘exploiting to exploring’

Only an engaged, committed senior executive can create a sustained innovation capability or discipline, yet many lack deep experience, awareness of the evolving tools and techniques and the real importance of their role within innovation.

Filling the innovation leadership gap is critical

For innovation to succeed broadly in any company, executives must sponsor and embrace innovation as a core discipline, built with a deep and evolving set of competencies, not as an ad hoc set of initiatives.

Senior executives must become fully involved; they must lead innovation through their own well-articulated vision of how innovation aligns. This informs people within the organization to understand why innovation is important, where they can fit in their contribution and what benefits it holds for each contributor, for the organization and for the customer and provides the potential for longer-term sustainability and the ability to open up the innovation dialogue to allow it to flow and gain increasing identification and organization alignment.

******

A series around the Innovation Executive Work Mat was recently featured by Hype Innovation discussing the Critical Aspects of an Innovation Vision, Explaining the Integrated Innovation Framework, Valuing and Introducing the Executive Innovation Work Mat and finally Building a Compelling Business Case for the Integrated Innovation Framework.

The post Closing the innovation leadership gap first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Working through these as essential combinations can become the real enabler.

Here is my solution that I think is worth working through, to firstly absorb and then consider for applying to your own innovation building activity. Try it!

I have worked on a formula SCA = II + OC + EE + MLC + RNE for this. I have never published the make-up of this in the public domain before, although I had briefly outlined it in a past post here.

In that post I outlined my thinking and I do not think it needs repeating, does it? So onward…….

The formula is the combination of positive relationships between the following interrelated parts:

Seeking out a working Sustainable Competitive Advantage (SCA)
What do you want to achieve from selecting the expected SCA  outcome choices? What do you need to frame as the SCA by using the parts of the formula?

• The extent of market advantage (posses distinctive advantage)
• Competitor’s difficulties to duplicate this, where the unique advantage is often found
• Strategic leadership is prevalent and nurturing and valued
• Understanding “superior” marketplace position (in revenue and cost advantage)
• Creating it, capturing it and keeping it distinctive
• Facilitating, accelerating and sustaining the diffusion process across the organization
• How do you seek relative advantage, achieve compatibility, reduce complexity, encourage trail-ability and ensure observe-ability?
• Advancing the clear “line-of-sight” new business always requires to execute upon.
• Looking to achieve better visibility, flexibility, extending collaborations and advancing concepts through technology and structured approaches.
• Other strategic objectives require distinct capabilities to be built into these 5 groups

Innovation Intensity (II) and the degree of adoption

• The extent of product, process, managerial and business innovation
• A mix of technological and non-technological innovation
• Impact of innovation expected through strategic leadership
• The magnitude of change capacity required through innovation
• The scale of innovation impact desired
• Plotting out the roadmap for innovations evolution
• Exploring the different types of innovation and their potential
• The use of Business Model innovation to change the proposition
• The essential linkage between strategy and innovation outputs and outcomes
• Investment x activity x focus x disruption = return on innovation expectations

Organizational Capabilities (OC) in developing their distinct differences

• New knowledge acquired and embedded, exploring the new contexts and ways
• The ability for value-creating activities to be accumulated, integrated and transferred
• Adaptive learning (leads more to incremental innovation)
• Generative learning (willingness to question long-held assumptions)- favours radical
• Relational learning (collaborative linkage, networking for open innovation)
• Distinctive learning of new knowledge to create added value directly.
• Experimental learning tolerance with new ways of doing things
• Learning from both internal and external knowledge focused positions
• Encouraging co-production of concepts (ideas, components, systems, R& D)
• The ability to also unlearn (long-held assumptions, group-think)
• Structural evaluations into routines, procedures, systems, culture etc
• Releasing latent capabilities- discovery and exploitation- as capital in waiting
• Linking the three capitals- human, structural and relational- for interactive leverage
• Combining complementary assets and dynamic capabilities to configure & reconfigure
• Build the technology skill sets focusing on collaboration
• Encourage techniques for formalization, exploitation and generation
• The value of Absorptive Capacity in acquisition, assimilation, transformation and exploitation.
• Seeking out the buy-in from the cross-functional business units

Entrepreneurial Energy (EE) promotes and generates

• Entrepreneurship facilitates generative-learning activities as the focus
• High tolerance of risk-taking, exploring the unproven, seeing patterns and shifts
• Pro-activeness in new directions, new capabilities, dynamics and mindsets
• Use of accumulated capabilities (coordinating, preserving and supervising)
• Key decision makers’ traits to investigate and encourage change, risk-taking propensity
• Positive outlook towards diversity & different behaviours, discovery and experimentation
• Providing a learning environment through trials and pilots that can scale quickly

Market Learning Competence (MLC) for establishing a clear awareness

• Through marketing capability and market understanding vigour
• Market focused to acquire, disseminate and use the knowledge acquired
• Exploit through sensing & scanning conditions for diverse and unrelated opportunity
• Possessing a close interaction with customers, users and suppliers
• Ability and speed to react to the variability of the environment
• Possess a high level of competitor awareness
• High levels of customer orientation and “over-served”/ “undeserved” insights.
• Always orientated towards innovation, not just new product development
• Building agility and responsiveness to constantly changing market conditions
• Getting to the “heart of the customer” in outcome-driven ways for their needs.

Relationship & Networking Effects (RNE) and its support to enhance

• Building greater exchanges of knowledge through interactions
• Encourage the constant practice of sharing
• Promote systems of relationships and the structures needed
• Strengthen alignment and appreciation of value-adding activities
• Connecting Knowledge Management with finding ongoing Business Value
• Combing Knowledge with constant practice & sharing
• Support to enhance the needs and guidance through good governance
• Resolve actively the barriers and concerns
• Build trust, connectedness and belonging
• Build a common purpose and share the vision
• Build an identity and offer difference to stop the leakage of knowledge
• Actively connect people to people, people to knowledge
• Gain alignment, be transparent, build identity and encourage networking
• Support the patterns of exchange, their impact on value,
• Assess the dynamics and new value potentials in the different exchanges
• Linking the collaborative efforts to define, align and stimulate innovation targets, strategies and initiatives to support ongoing and sustaining success
• Measure robustness, diversity and renewal
• Searching for defining and designing complementary platforms.

Brief background and some thoughts
On first take all this seems to be a long list, actually, this is offered on purpose. You add your own distinct needs within this formula but take care not to dismiss any suggestions offered here, without ‘good cause’.

The challenge is how you see it, how you value its ability to connect context and the content or aspects you want to focus upon. These structures or building blocks you can start individually adding your unique “flesh to the bone”.

Let this become an innovation capability formula that stays in your head and you constantly ‘walk around’ its parts to get an increasing connection and momentum to build its value from others needing to relate to what is important to building sustaining capabilities.

I got the original idea of this framework a number of years back by reading through some different thoughts that JayWeerawasdena had put together in a number of assorted papers. These assorted ideas and concepts partly fueled my idea that led to this ‘combining’ concept of mine, finally published here.

I feel we need to provide a framework that can be worked in ways that build your own unique capabilities. By focusing on these key components that do tend to make-up innovation that leads to sustaining ongoing competitive advantage you can frame and measure activity.

The other formula to measure this against

The one other formula I use with this is measuring its return on investment. This is

So a framework and a formula to measure innovation’s impact. Does this make sense to you? It has to me for years. I just thought I’d publish it a little wider than limiting it to a chosen few.

Really do think about it, experiment with it and see if it does not give you the increased intensity and focus you are needing for building greater capabilities.

I think you will find it does give you a powerful framework to build those capabilities around, needed to deliver real advantage going forward.

The post Building an innovation framework that has real capabilities as its formula as its heart. first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

The competition seems to be warming up in the more ‘standalone’ out-of-the-box segment and the innovative tools being provided are certainly accelerating the innovation process.

The software being provided is going well beyond the simply mining and capturing of promising ideas. The solutions are moving into sound idea enrichment, evaluation processes and managing a portfolio of innovation in more holistic ways.

The providers here, namely Hype, Brightidea, Spigit, Imaginatik and a growing group of others have been significantly improving their ‘front end’ offerings to capture and develop concepts

They are increasingly turning their attentions to the ‘back end’ and support with a greater focus on governance, knowledge repositories, campaign cockpits, evaluation and dialogue exchange mechanisms. Mobility has also been a growing feature to capture innovation ‘on the go’.

Will we see Emerging Enterprise Solutions for greater integration?

The change that we are beginning to see emerge is the growing interest in innovation management software from the bigger

Enterprise integrators. In particular, I have become more aware of the advances taking place in managing innovation from SAP, or the potential promise yet to emerge.

I have been working through a presentation made by Marco Cigaina from SAP’s Global Services Innovation group recently and felt the concept outlined was beginning to frame innovation and its management in a solid way.

One that can potentially move software solutions into a structured, comprehensive and consistent set of concepts to build around for innovative applications.

I’m not sure if SAP is advancing this as their innovation roadmap or it was just a conceptual framework offered by part of the organization to explore and contribute to thinking. I want to learn more as I think it has some potential.

They (well at least Marco) are calling this (at present) the Innovation Management Framework building upon applicable foundations of knowledge for innovation management and working towards an overarching execution model.

Judge for yourselves on this suggested innovation framework.

You can watch the video here, it is about 50 minutes offered up as a workshop from the SAP University Alliances led by Marco Cigaina. He has also written a book on this, go here to find out more.

The Innovation Management Framework presented in this book and workshop articulates innovation management in a structured and consistent set of concepts and practices, and focuses on their concrete applicability to the objective of enabling and fostering innovation in established companies. It provides a sound starting point in my opinion.

Here is the Innovation Management framework.

So what is making up the thinking that goes into each of these sections on what this framework seems to offer?

For me, it certainly feels to have advanced the potential for innovation to eventually become a fully integrated SAP solution

It has six aspects within this.

• It starts out to build the innovation taxonomy and where a common language and the critical capability aspects begin to be formed. It is suggesting to frame around innovation capabilities, projects and outcomes and looks to focus on scope, scale, perspectives, impact and discontinuity aspects. It needs to build processes, methodologies, tools, business context, strategy and architecture for managing this for individuals, teams, organizations and networks. I like this as a higher level entry point.

• Then they suggest you move through the enterprise and strategic needs and layer different aspects of the Enterprise, Strategy, the Business Model, the Business Process, the Solutions, Technology and competencies needed. This part, for me, remains a little thin but does attempt to capture the different levels of the enterprise’s need and strategy to link into and flow. I would argue my outlined Executive Innovation Work Map framework would be useful here to ‘flesh’ this part out further, plus other thoughts I feel can be built into this part.-

• Then you move into processes and methodologies. The classic search and idea through to commercialize and monetize these. The structure of passing through evaluation and selection and then implementation is sketched out. The underlying structuring into research, ideation and creative methodologies, collaborative processes and tools, design thinking, IP management, Knowledge management, new solution development, project management to commercialization offer a beginning of a well- thought through a phase to allow distinct processes and methodologies that can still cater well for different Enterprise needs.

• Then the People and Networks draw in systematically all the partners, influences, institutions, crowdsourcing, customers and lead users and they are highlighting company culture, open innovation and structuring this again into a taxonomy making this a far more advanced approach to managing innovation today than what I have heard before. It reflects a more up to date view and the importance of people, their relationships and the networks you need to build and exploit for innovation.

• The part that I particularly like is the Orchestration and Governance section. It frames these into vision and strategy, the governance roles, a section called the initiatives management one where portfolio management sits alongside venture management. The other key aspect I really like is the focus on organizational learning where you manage through a maturity model and equally feed into the knowledge repository and finally with metrics associated with these to manage and monitor the innovation activity.

I certainly believe orchestration and governance is badly undervalued by many organizations within their innovative approaches and this would advance the thinking and give orchestration and governance its place of critical importance by offering this component within any innovation framework. I’ve written about the role of governance a few times, as well as the importance of orchestration, so I welcome this more dedicated focus.

• Lastly, the Execution model covers set-up structures, analyse and design, planning, execution and evaluation steps. This is to be regarded as iterative in approach. Again, treating execution as a standalone step I think has real added value focus. I’ve learnt that execution is a rugged terrain full of as much a need for concerted leadership as the other parts of innovation and its management. One aspect is building a sustaining execution machine and is the final frontier in managing and delivering innovation successfully.

The really potential promise of Enterprise Integration
The other part of the thinking and certainly critical within any SAP solution would I assume, be any innovation system that needs to integrate into other information systems and processes.

That is the strong selling point of SAP, its focus on integration, although ‘the cloud’ might be challenging this and altering this possibly.

If SAP can achieve that ability to integrate this into being part of the Enterprise solutions then we do have many of the existing impediments to innovation adoption melt away. Offering an integrated solution would really offer innovation and its management a real opportunity to become fully embedded within our organizations.

As I said, I’m not sure where SAP is in actually realizing this Innovation Management Framework. All I can feel it has a real potential to expand and explore further as an overarching approach.

This potential framework is certainly viewing IM in a more holistic way, it is moving beyond ‘just’ ideas management or standalone components, often like PLM, or PPM and would significantly advance innovation to be fully embedded within our organizations.

We really do need to resolve this growing need to get technology and systems ‘talking’ innovation, to establish their position and integrity and have integrated interfaces into a total ERP system.

Innovation management today is often standing outside any integration structure. Some may argue it should do but I do think innovation is often missing the critical line of top management sight and suffers accordingly in numerous constraints.

Lacking this holistic understanding of innovation often makes it hard for top management to gain the confidence or be supplied with their required view of innovation and all that is associated with it. They want and expect a clear line of sight. We spend far too much time trying to connect innovation to the Enterprise.

Can this change? I believe we are getting closer to a point of having integrated software solutions for innovation.

If innovation management can be integrated into the organization’s systems many of the current problems, barriers and issues surrounding innovation might begin to melt away or change the existing unsatisfactory result game of today.

Innovation has many touchpoints, and a myriad of dimensions that need to be aligned and integrated and I genuinely believe the software provider who takes a more holistic view of innovation management can make a significant advancement in where we are today.

I simply like these perspectives offered by Marco through his research and work undertaken with SAP and feel it does makes a very credible initial attempt to frame innovation in a well-thought-out way. What do you think?

The post Are we moving towards integrated software for innovation management? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Jeffrey Phillips of Ovo Innovation and I wrote a White Paper, we called our foundation document, on “Accelerating or inhibiting innovation – understand your role for innovation success”. You can read the full paper here

We strongly believe there is a real Innovation leadership gap

My last article “Developing talent to drive innovation” was questioning the spending of new funds on developing talent for innovation, unless the organization and its leadership is not clear on what it is specifically looking for, or how it is prepared to back their words with specific actions beyond ‘just’ new funding levels, then this might not be money well spent.

Developing talent for innovation requires commitment across a whole range of structure, creating conditions, adapting or designing new systems, processes and providing clear governance. Senior executives need to understand innovation is often far more frustrating than most executives imagine it to be and a awful lot of hard work. Innovation is very demanding but the rewards can be spectacular in new growth, improved earning and organizations ‘sense of pride and identification’.

There are no best practice solutions to fall back on for your specific organizations to seed and cultivate innovation, a trap many fall into. You don’t switch innovation on or off to meet short term needs, it is certainly not faddish, innovation is simply, a or the, core driver of growth, future performance and your valuation barometer.

The innovation buck in responsibility for innovation is firmly at the top.

The innovation buck stops at the top, it will not work in just being ‘pushed down’ the organization. It is the role senior executives  must fill for achieving a greater innovation success.

If the leadership of the organization fail to formally integrate innovation into the core of any strategic- management agenda where it ‘constantly runs through’ the decision making process innovation will remain disappointing in its impact. Our leaders need to explicitly lead and manage, they need to close the gap between aspiration and execution where everyone up and down the organization can feel more confident that innovation is a core focus and needs developing.

It is against this clear observation from our and many others research initiatives, that the place to focus is getting the leadership to fully understand their key role and engage in innovation, to make it a central core to their own destiny, in top and bottom results.

So our opening thoughts in the white paper on this leadership void.

Here’s a vital question to answer that will make a difference to your organization’s survival: which individual in your organization is most important for innovation success? Many people will argue it is the most creative person in the company, the individual with the best ideas. Others will argue that it is the person who can make the idea a reality.

Perhaps these answers are true in entrepreneurial companies or very small firms, but these responses aren’t true in larger organizations. In larger organizations we believe the CEO or another empowered senior executive is the most important person for innovation success, since they have the ability to:

• link innovation to strategy, and
• create focus, engagement and passion for innovation, and
• direct funds and resources to good innovation programs, and
• speed good ideas to market as new business models, products and services, and
•  ensure the processes and metrics exist so innovation is sustainable.

In mid-sized and large companies, leadership and engagement from CEOs and senior executives are vital to innovation success. What’s more, these leaders want innovation to happen, more consistently, more purposefully and with better result.

Not only do CEOs and executives want innovation, they demand innovation to drive organic growth, profits and create differentiation. We know this because you’ve made it clear. In survey after survey the vast majority of CEOs report that innovation is one of their top three priorities. Yet the gap between “saying and doing” indicates a gap between vision and implementation. The consequences of this gap are significant:

• Poor execution of innovation goals
• Failure to achieve strategic goals
• Limited organizational design to sustain innovation
• The growth of disbelief or cynicism when innovation isn’t pursued.

We also believe CEOs and senior executives play a vital role in the success or failure of innovation.

Unfortunately, those roles haven’t been well-defined. Since the roles are poorly defined, they are rarely well executed. It’s not enough for executives simply to demand more innovation – senior executives must demonstrate links between corporate strategy and the work of innovation, between their vision and the activities necessary to create new products and services and between their expectations and the actual culture of the organization.

Executives fail to fill this vital role when they:

• are unaware of the role,
• don’t understand the importance of their role,
• delegate the role to others who don’t have the power to execute the role, or
• under-perform in the role.

Understanding the importance of innovation, and the barriers that innovation will encounter, helps define key activities an innovation senior executive must undertake, and what he or she must do to fill the role effectively. This leads to an important question: if innovation is strategically important, and if engaged senior executives are critical to innovation success, what keeps executives from filling the role effectively?

There are a number of reasons why executives have difficulty filling an innovation leadership role,including:

• Lack of innovation experience
  • Concern about short-term financial reporting goals
  • Difficulty managing “important” versus “urgent” tasks
  • Difficulty converting their vision into reality
  • Lack trusted innovation tools and frameworks
  • Unaware of the level of resistance and inertia
  • Concerned about upsetting the status quo

Many senior executives lack innovation experience. They often move into their positions through excellent financial management, cost cutting or other demonstrated operational successes. Thus, they lack innovation experience and are unfamiliar with its methodologies, tools and frameworks and often have few trusted sources for well-tested methods and insights.

Innovation is especially challenging because it is so unfamiliar, so potentially disruptive and yet so important. Innovation requires change that can impact the status quo and disrupt the firm’s ability to achieve short-term financial goals. Only an engaged, committed senior executive can create a sustained innovation capability or discipline, yet many lack experience, tools and awareness of the importance of the role.

The seven essential capabilities for innovation leadership

Understanding the innovation environment critical to innovation success led us to identify seven essential capabilities that senior executives must provide in order to fill those roles effectively. These relate to skills, capabilities and the capacities for innovation to thrive.

These include:

• creating alignment,

• deploying trusted methods and tools,

• effective communication and engagement,

• empowering people, providing skills,

• refocusing attitudes, perspectives and rewards ,

• defining a corporate “governance” for innovation

Leaders can drive innovation through thoughtfully designing the strategic innovation framework.

This initial White Paper became the prelude to the Executive Innovation Work Mat. The Work Mat, which provides a unique examination of the executive’s role in innovation, it helps executives understand the vital role they must play for innovation to succeed, and provide a framework that companies can adopt to ensure linkages between strategy and innovation, innovation and capabilities, innovation and culture.

More can be read on this website to extend your understanding of the work mat, for example.

For innovation to really take hold and become a sustaining and systematic function, it is for the leadership of our organizations to become strategically engaged, by providing the framework, the guidance, the direction and necessary top management commitment to ‘make this happen.’

Lastly leaders in organizations, big or small, need a lot of help in working all of the implications through, believe me……and many others fed up with leaders disappointment when they fail to fully engage in strategic framing approaches and making the time and the commitments themselves !

The post The role senior executives must fill for innovation success first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Innovation happens all around us, same as with our places where we live- it is determined by many factors but given a choice we want to live somewhere nice, safe and hopefully going up in value!

The same with innovation we want it to be good, attractive, useful and valued by many, hopefully, willing to part with their money because it fulfils their need.

Innovation should always start of by being placed in its appropriate context otherwise it will lose its initial connection, dilute in the eventual value and arrive as less desirable because we somehow and somewhere went off track

We lost the context because we never really established the real ‘sense of purpose’ for that specific innovation or given direction to explore.

Why do I believe context is the king when it comes to innovation?

The power of context shifts everything and then gives it ‘shape’. It provides the conditions and the circumstances of time and place and why we need to find and deliver something different. It provides the innovation marching orders.

If we place innovation in a certain set of contexts, then those setting about the task are more sensitive to the needs and understanding, they can relate or can reject this. It can allow them to work more clearly and effectively, not necessarily efficiently as innovation is inherently messy.

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 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.

If we don’t know why we are doing something in our innovation activities, there is a good chance we will just stop innovating and switch to auto-pilot. We become disinclined to be creative as we don’t understand the “what for”. Knowing the context allows us to engage.

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.

Context must lead, functionality and capability then follow

There is a flow for improving innovation performance. If we don’t frame the business context how can we compare and contrast?  How do we know what we are missing or what it is meant to be achieving? When we go about seeking out opportunities we need to understand the context these are placed in, the avenue of competitive advantage the new solution is attempting to address.

This requires a ‘decent’ vision, often beyond a product brief that might be adjusted as we learn more, it needs to fit into the context of our business strategy and goals, our ambitions of what we want innovation to achieve. We need to have something we can measure ‘it’ against with all the commitment of time and resource.

We need to give our search for innovation some function and form. We begin to reveal our ‘gaps’ when we have a ‘reasonable clue of where we are heading.

Then we each have of our personal contexts that form our identity and motivations to help in delivering the innovation, these will lead us into our performance and contribution. Here by knowing the context does helps us assess if we have the capabilities in knowledge, skills, experience and expertise to deliver on the context or not.

Knowing the context actually empowers us, it gives us the reference points of our engagement. It allows us to work towards plugging those gaps to lead to improved functionality and capabilities gained.

We can apply our capacities to absorb and learn.

We can become adaptive. We can set about acquiring, assimilating, transforming and exploiting knowledge far better if we know the context it is needed to be applied. I wrote an article on absorptive capacity recently where I stated “The value of absorptive capacity is that when organizations have some prior knowledge they are more receptive to adding new understandings and new ideas”

The lessons of placing ‘it’ in context are powerful. We are more than sensitive to change; it can be a negative or positive experience. If we place great attention to context always, in our conversations, in our goal setting, in our innovation work it becomes one of the powerful enablers of bringing about change.

Context does not just ‘set’ but it ‘allows’ innovation to happen.

You are putting knowledge into the hands of the people willing to make it happen. Allow them to invent, to brainstorm, and to generate concepts, prototypes because alongside the mantra of “context, context, and context” you place equally “people, people, people” as innovation only happens through people.

You give each person the explicit encouragement, by laying these in the right context, then you can simple ‘get out of the way’ and let them go to work in delivering innovative solutions to that context. You are all working off of the same, often ‘dynamic’ page, as the innovation evolves, so does the context get refreshed. Innovation takes on a distinct identity for all involved.

Of course context is going to be fluid

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 allows people to want to find solutions as they gain increased knowledge and provide fresh inputs, they begin to strongly relate.

The innovation activity becomes eventually a thriving community working in the innovation context where new beliefs can be practised, expressed and nurtured.  As Malcolm Gladwell put it in his book “The Tipping Point :How little things can make a big difference”, the lesson is in the value of the Power of Context.

Context sets us the dancing music, the ‘one-step, two-step’ of learning and knowing, searching and discovering. As we ‘tune in’ we begin to move and respond, it sets the conditions to build the rhythm needed for innovation.

It allows for the further steps, the pivotal ones, those that lead you to a better chance of producing winning innovation simply by knowing the critical aspect of “it’s”context.

Context gives our innovation activity its meaning and sense of purpose.

Save

The post Learning the mantra of innovation context first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

If you ever look at high performance in sport it is in the consistent, hour-upon-hour, day-upon-day of dedicated practice, hard work and consistent honing that gets you to that performance point. You seek to reduce deviance; you look to achieve a certain consistency.

Business Organizations will like that approach, it ‘plays’ to the efficiency and effectiveness message, it offers up predictability and reliability that allows for dedicated planning and ‘predicting’ solid performance and certainly. This is ideal for those investors looking for consistency in results and dividends and the Executive Board yearns for.

Today uncertainly asks for a different performance

Today, we face a different type of performance – one that is not ‘just’ dependable but one that is often unpredictable, one that seems perhaps more suited to innovation that outsmarts others in unique ways.

We need to be predictable in performance but we need to deliver unpredictable innovation that wows our customers and the markets to achieve this. To do this you have to run today’s organizations faster, better, in more active and engaged ways to extract the best from it but to allow it to exploit options consistently and with clear purpose.

This engagement needs a different honing than most organizations are certainly not capable of delivering, without thinking long and hard about the way they must undertake a more transformational pathway. One that can connect and deliver a consistent and coherent innovating performance across the organization.

With so much around us, of unprecedented levels of disruption and uncertainly, unrelenting competitive pressure, fickle markets and customers, it creates either a ‘freezing at the top’, a paralysis-effect focusing just on short-term incremental measures or the “going for it” with huge ‘big bets’ that risk losing the whole farm. There must be better ways to manage in these times of uncertainty without having to choose one end of the spectrum or the other?

Managing innovation well is this middle way.

Innovation requires careful managing. I like to put the emphasis of innovation behind both efficiency in innovation and effectiveness in innovation. Innovation may never be simply predictable but it can be well-managed, to extract and leverage its best performance but to achieve this it needs a highly focused top management engagement. Often we are not seeing this in many organizations today.

You simply can’t delegate innovation down the organization. Innovation needs to be as aligned, as honed to strategy, to extracting from its available resources as anything else in organizations. It needs connecting, it needs articulating, it needs framing, it needs cascading throughout the organization.

We need to cascade innovation down the organization.

I believe there is an essential gap within the way we set about innovation today. There is a need for a well-articulated and well-communicated innovation strategy that can be delivered in an organizing framework that has been called the Executive Innovation Work Mat. Over a series of articles and blog posts I have laid out the Value Proposition for this.

In obtaining the right innovation engagement at the top of our organizations, well communicated throughout the entire company, we reduce distance and bridge many current disconnects surrounding innovation. We consistently raise performance.

Triggering the cascade-effect is seeking out broad adoption.

How do we achieve firstly, a change in performance that is both rapid but also one that works on consistently looking for improving performance over the longer-term? We need to think ‘velocity’ not only down organizations; we need to encourage this sense of movement in multiple directions, flowing back up organizations in knowledge and understanding with the ‘result’ of going out performing in greater successful innovations, time and again.

I’ve previously written on the cascading effect needed for innovation success looking at two-way flows and the value of closer alignment.

I want to go one step further in THREE VISUAL CASCADING steps

We need to achieve alignment, all sorts of alignment. We need to convey throughout the organization and encourage a closer alignment on not just what to do but also to support the how to do it as well as the where to do it.

We need to leverage across the entire ecosystem that makes up the organizations place where we consciously work on immediate impact points in this year’s innovation outcomes but also what is going to give us this longer-term transformational effect.

This requires a huge emphasis on collaborative efforts, on promoting behaviours and matching understanding within a greater transparent organization climate and culture.

We need to find more fluid and flexible organizations that respond through searching for innovation consistency. They need to have a ‘flow’ of knowledge, of clarity, of a sense of scale in their learning and dialogues that promotes greater successful innovation outcomes as the sense of on-going mission.

We need to align, offer clear vision and purpose and this needs orchestrating from the top of the organization to the bottom. Organizations need an integrated innovation strategic framework that can deliver commonality in understanding, in purpose, in language. We need to cascade.

What we are looking for is a cascade of better choices to achieve the desired innovation outcomes that only an integrated innovation design can achieve. This is where the engagement from the top of the organization becomes pivotal. They ‘frame’ the design; they offer the alignment and integrated approach I believe the Executive Innovation Work Mat methodology can provide.

The work mats aim is to engage the top of our organizations to lay out the conditions and result impact they expected from innovation. Then it needs to be cascaded throughout the organization.

Through this cascading-effect you move closer to better choices that can get so much closer to the desired innovation outcomes all involved want to seek out.

A performance that reflects a team’s or organizations best efforts to be best at what they do; the outstanding innovation performance consistent to the needs and growth expectations demanded in today’s constantly changing world.

Where consistency needs to be fluid, flexible, aligned and agile in innovation – that’s the new target performance standard needed.

The post A Cascade of Better Choices for Greater Innovation Outcomes first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.