I would argue for new management practices that need to be evolved to deal with digital, disruption and rapidly changing conditions on a consistent basis. Our high levels of rigidity and linear thinking need changing
One of the most critical ones is the degree of fluidity we can achieve in ourselves and our organizations, this will significantly help us to adjust to a changing world, more dynamic, requiring us to be constantly adaptive, with information coming at us at an ever-increasing speed, that needs assimilating, transforming and embedding as new knowledge.
The innovation accelerators model – I often am coming back to this as the formula for building intensity into your innovation activity.
I have been arguing that you can have a unique model for some time. I think the way I have it structured is it is a formula for an innovation acceleration model.
I think it is worth working through, it seems to move with the times of what we need to focus upon.
When did we lose the appetite for risk? Innovation is suffering badly from our present risk adverse approach. Risk-taking has become threatening, we are all ‘fixated’ on covering all the downsides of risk, looking more at the possibilities of loss and less so at all the possibilities of success
So, we end up with “mediocre work within a mediocre company” yet it was not previously like that. Risk aversion had become dominating and the organization’s leadership was signaling “they were really more comfortable being ordinary”.
How does that square off with “we want to be highly innovative, it is important to us, our growth and delivering ongoing value to our shareholders and to our customers depends on us being innovative”.
It is funny but that often-used phrase “what goes around, comes around” seems appropriate here.
I was catching up with my often collaborator and sparring partner on “all things innovating” Jeffrey Phillips recently, and within our conversation, some of our discussions sort of triggered a reflection back to some fundamental work we undertook some years back.
In revisiting it, I felt it does stand the test of time and does seem to make this “come around” seem true. Let me provide a quick introduction along with some brief explanations :
Within our present business, we are being many ‘transforming’ questions around technology. For instance, the cloud asks a lot of questions for us to determine and decide what ‘resides’ where, what stays inside, what can be dispersed out. Decisions we make will alter our performance ability and how we compete, how we connect and interact.
Are we smarter, can we download the software seamlessly, can we determine what data stays where? What is valuable, what is not, can we layer on increasingly complexity but at the same time strip away unnecessary activities or analytics?
Each of us is making tough technology-related decisions that will determine our abilities to evolve or simply fade away due to this set of evolutionary questions we are all facing.
The shifts taking place around innovation have been significant in their impact
There is a lot changing in and around innovation, are we accounting for it as much as we should?
The shifts taking place around innovation are been hugely shaped in how digital transformation continues to grow in its importance. How it is influencing much that is surrounding innovation, as it continues to disrupt in faster, demanding ways, where it deconstructs.
It is forcing us to reconstruct our innovative thinking, so as to gain from all this transformation occurring all around us.
Today most executives seem to be time-starved. They are constantly reacting to daily events, for fix focusing and fixing short-term performance. This applies to the top executive down to the most junior.
It just seems to me they simply don’t have this luxury to think.
Technology is rapidly taking over this thinking role. We are being deluged by social media that constantly become smarter on your clicks to give you the information to help you in your daily lives.
Yet it is not helping us to really think, we often are simply not connecting the dots, we are chasing the moving dots.
We are caught in two states- a need for stability and a need for fluidity. We need to be adaptive, agile and responsive. Often we are trapped in the oncoming ‘headlights’ like a deer caught out crossing the road at night. The deer momentarily ‘freezes’ and we seem so often to be equally caught in this dilemma in our innovation’s creation capabilities
Today our organizations are still far too rigid, they are not adaptive or agile enough to really exploit innovation to the full, they are not responsive to the changes occurring constantly in fluid and dynamic markets.
We stay trapped in the established way of thinking. Organization’s struggle with this organizational constraint imposed by the singular, or dominating pursuit of efficiency and effectiveness at the cost of ‘fluidity.’
“Let’s return knowledge back to knowledge!” “Let’s return value back to knowledge” This held my attention.
So now I want to draw this to your attention, the underlying story. I was recently invited to join the Future Shapers as a contributor and I was delighted to be accepted as a future shapers contributor.this is my profile link.
There are some strong reasons to add my voice to this group so I wanted to share this with you here on my main posting site
Normally I would not try to merge my posting site with others unless I have some growing level of involvement, contribution or strong identification with. Well, this is one of those but I first wanted to wait before I publicize it here, as the official launch of a funding project kicked off late last week in Madrid,(link) that radically gives it a really different meaning, one to draw to your attention as it is radically different.
So let me explain why, so I have provided the outlines of the story below in their words
Knowledge Graphs have a real potential to become highly valuable, topical and relevant. If only we can get them prised out of the engineer, data scientists, or software experts hands.
We simply should so we can get this concept fully out into the real world, that of applying as solutions to real client problems, it would really help. I get tired of hearing about “use cases”, where concepts like KG often get caught up in, that never-ending validation.
Is this validation simply because it does not work, it is too much hard work delivering the promise within the concept? Or the approach has too much complexity around it and needs massive resources to undertake?
KG needs a real resource momentum and a determination to break through uncertainty. Its huge value should drive it, and caution should be modified and lets go out and validate it, in the real world.
If any of these “constraints” are the case, then we do need to “hack this” differently, as Knowledge Graphs has what I see an incredible potential, as an application solution that should be deemed as far too important to keep under wraps. We need to instill a sense of urgency into this. Why, well read on.
