I think the activity behind all of this is actually very encouraging, it shows the current dissatisfaction with what we have and the quest for providing a formula for overcoming this ‘present state’.

I think they are all contributing to a promising future. Yet we need to consider the balance within any innovation understanding or equation to derive its real value.
At least this introduction allows me to work in a few of my own contributions here. If you are interested in them, then click on the link, if not just carry on, simple as that, it is your choice.

Some of my contributions towards innovation understanding

I offered up the innovation pathway curve of understanding that has five learning curves for determining your innovation and the migration path to a different future. This suggests we need to break innovation down into its manageable parts. Innovation does not just have a time axis that the three horizons framework refers too but it has a complexity and scope axis in learning as well.

Then I offered up the “building an innovation framework that has real capabilities at its heart” which argues that a ‘given’ formula of SCA = II + OC + EE + MLC + RNE,  ‘suggests’ this formula as the combination of positive relationships between the following interrelated parts, so as to deliver a far superior innovation outcome. I have to admit I can’t let go of this one!

My third offering was a joint collaboration with Jeffrey Philips, over at Ovo. This is summarized in “Critical aspects of the Collaborative Innovation Framework”. This is also covered off in a dedicated site at http://cirf.pbworks.com.

Jeffrey and I picked up the baton again in a further collaboration on part of the innovation equation with an alignment view, we called this “the Executive Innovation Work Mat” and went into a significant open dialogue on this as we both judged it as critical and important to advance innovation.

I completed a whole series on this and its seven parts. This rumbles on and gathers recognition of its value to making innovation change. This was the piece of work dearest to my heart.

I think I have missed a few but it all depends on how you understand “equation”. Back in 2012 (oh it seems so long ago) I wrote a piece called “Two sides of an equation for shaping innovation” and this is where I want to focus upon within this post: “balancing our innovation understanding”

I really think we need to understand the two sides of the innovation balance sheet

When Jeffrey and I were working though the initial thinking behind the Executive Innovation Work Mat I saw these two sides really clearly.

Actually we captured it in the final framing, we clearly saw these two distinct sides to consider yet are so mutually dependent. My balance sheet thinking.

The left side of the innovation work mat or my balance sheet contains the soft side of innovation, far more the intangibles of culture, climate and environment, whereas the right side is more the hard aspects, the tangibles of process, design, governance, structure and function.

The middle is the place to build the common language of understanding, look for communicating, cascading and setting innovation in its rightful context to clarify how and why that ‘we’ set about the innovation activities in this particular way.

So is it two sides or made up of three? Well each of the sides, the intangibles more on the left and the tangibles, more determined on the right, make up the hard and soft factors and these all make up innovation that contributes into the middle, where the ‘innovation energy’ is confirmed.

The balance sheet construct delivers the equity equation you gain as the trade off or innovation catalyst, it needs presenting in different narratives and supportive actions . As you achieve a clarity of you ‘innovation energy’, based on your capabilities and capacities to innovate, you deliver the understanding and growing competencies, the required effort and contribution that can be achieved from the extraction from the two sides of the balance sheet.

That is why communicating, cascading, building a common language and the context is in the middle, central to extracting the best result from the two sides of this work mat.

At the time Jeffrey and I were looking at the informal mechanisms and formal mechanisms that contribute into these two sides of the innovation balance sheet.

Here is a list of the factors we felt were major contributors (far from exhaustive) to the soft side of our balance sheet that is made up of culture, climate and environment as our brainstorming to move us to the criteria that always lie under the top-level innovation balance sheet and then the ones that make up the harder side.

Some of course are inter-changeable or reliant on each other, but it gives a decent understanding of what makes up the balance sheet needs we all must have in place to have a thriving innovation organization.

Informal mechanisms (the contributors to the left side of our innovation balance sheet)

Those that are leading to improving the softer aspects of innovation or our left side of the innovation balance sheet) that would contribute to its build.

• Uncovering good and emerging practices in innovation
• The value of good leadership & distinct culture creating the linkages
• Targets and partner identification for relating and collaborating
• Skill of working together effectively – team building, encouraging diversity
• Integrating external parties to leverage through networks and relationships.
• Framing ambitions and plans of strategic targets and relating those to individuals
• Engaging the outer peripheries to capture insights and needs to drive engagement
• Exchanging expertise and seeking synergy in exchanges
• Story telling/ narratives- relating and explaining, sharing and extending
• More bottom-up engagement in formulation – sharing and informing
• Seeking individual insights, encouraging an open learning environment
• Developing the agility to quickly react to changes, effective and decisive intent
• Work on speed, external orientation and improvisation, flexible and adaptive
• To promote “doing more with the same”, less rework.
• The CEO acts as the central source of encouragement and determination
• Encourage informally at all levels in exchange

The formal mechanisms (the contributors to the right side of the innovation balance sheet)

Those that contribute to the make-up of the harder aspects of innovation or our right side of the innovation balance sheet that build this part.

• Ingraining innovation as a corporate function
• Determining how you lead and manage this, how you develop this out in its parts
• Identify the constraints, articulate the resolutions, recognise the boundaries
• Optimizing the process and structures, constantly reviewing to improve
• Determining the allocation of funds to offer the balance needed to achieve the goals
• Innovation portfolio management designed
• Type of openness to innovation flows to encourage and drive outcomes
• Embedding technology and capacity for rapid experimentation, and discovery
• Rapid ideas, discard failing ones & triple investment on good ideas
• Distance from Customer – determining the importance and setting about the connecting
• Ingrain as a corporate functionality the need to always be conscious of greater alignment
• Determining how you lead and manage through governance and design.
• Identify the constraints and boundaries, pushing and probing
• Optimizing the process and structures on an ongoing basis
• Determining the allocation of funds into the different framing activities
• Innovation portfolio management, striving for value, impact and return
• Type of openness to innovation flows and external engagements needed
• Embedding technology and capacity for rapid results and early wins
• Rapid ideas, discard failing ones & triple investment on good ideas, experiment and explore
• Involvement from both Customer and other stakeholders within your innovation process

These were not an exhaustive list, (well they are in many ways) they were the framing or triggering points to relate to the different aspects that need to be balanced when you consider innovation.

The essential seven parts of innovation understanding

The whole reason we believed in the work mat construct was the make-up of its seven parts. The left side contains the essential aspects of designing the culture, the climate, the environment and how these contribute into the innovation equation. These are far more intangible, softer but vital to make innovation work as they are more people orientated.

The right side consists of the function, design, process, structures and governance that make up the harder aspects, those that facilitate innovation. These are the enablers that manage innovation.

Each side outlined here contributes to the context, the communication and cascading of innovation throughout the organization.

While the Strategic Alignment links all the innovation activities into the corporate agenda. Its goals, strategies and contributes to the need for investments and achievement timescales.

At the bottom of our work mat we have as our ‘flow through point’ – the motivational indicators and measures to gain and frame the outcomes we want to achieve.

For all this you do need this cascading, this common language and context and this is why it sits in the middle, it is the glue that holds all the work mat parts together, to make it identifiable, to complete our view of the innovation equation we need in place.

Deciding the innovation equation is appreciating the value underpinning the balance sheet.

For me, the equation you decide to follow has to be robust; it has to account for a more holistic view of innovation.

We are moving towards better framing techniques for innovation to advance, it is certainly going to be always be made up of part art and part science, yet by us having a clear balance sheet of understanding to think through, in this work mat thinking, this will offer the underpinning that the innovation equation requires, that is ‘sound’ and ‘solid’ to invest into.

The post Balancing Our Innovation Understanding first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

The amount of economic restructuring presently underway will require a far more flexible workforce in the future that needs to have a wide range of transferable skills. Knowing what and where it will be is valued is becoming important for all of us to understand.

Released in late September 2011 there has been a timely report for the European Commission as part of the Social agenda for modernising Europe entitled “Transferability of Skills across Economic Sectors”,  ISBN 978-92-79-20946-8, doi:10.2767/40404 © European Union, 2011 found in the DG Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion section under this link:  http://bit.ly/sDt14p.

I think this helps build a better understanding of the different skills required and especially for me, a better structure for softer skill definitions

The background to this report is the increasing concerns within the EU as to how to improve its competitiveness and redirect the European economy towards higher added value to generate new and better jobs. This increasingly relies upon more strategic management of human resources.
For me innovation will be a leading driver of this job and growth generation so in obtaining a deeper understanding of the present thinking in this area of skills is important one to my work on building future capabilities and capacity for innovation for my present and future clients.

The part people play and the skill set they will need are crucial for innovation’s health. Clearly we are facing continual adaptation and the consistent search for adding value, not just to what we sell but also to what we have available in resources  to exploit it.

This report helps in reinforcing where skills fit, front and centre, to any future growth and job creation.

Establishing a skills taxonomy
There is a lack of consistent theory for defining and classifying various skills, and there is no generally accepted skills taxonomy. The project team thus decided to distinguish three categories of skills on the basis of previous analysis: 1)soft skills; 2) generic hard skills; 3)specific hard skills.

Specific hard skills are characterised by their lower level of transferability, whereas soft skills and generic hard skills are skills with high transferability across sectors and occupations and can be identified as transversal skills.

My focus here is the soft skills within transversal skills that support innovation activity.

Transversal skills that range from problem-solving to interpersonal skills are considered as important for innovation. Having these skills, which can be transferred from one context to another, is a good basis for accumulation of specific skills required by a given job expected in managing a robust innovation pipeline and portfolio to deliver new growth opportunities.

Within the report I find it is interesting that they have identified 22 soft skills within 5 clusters

Cluster one: Personal effectiveness skills:Self-control and stress resistance; Self-confidence; Flexibility; Creativity; Lifelong learning. These skills reflect some aspects of an individual’s maturity in relation to himself/herself, to others and to work.

They are related to performance of an individual when dealing with environmental pressures and difficulties.

Cluster two: Relationship and service skills:
Interpersonal understanding; Customer orientation; Cooperation with others; Communication. These skills enable people to understand the needs of others and to cooperate with them.

Communication skills are linked to all clusters and they are included in this one because of their important role in relationship building and communication with others.

Cluster three: Impact and influence skills:
Impact/Influence; Organisational awareness; Leadership; Development of others. Skills in this cluster reflect an individual’s influence on others. Managerial competencies are a special subset of this cluster.

Cluster four: Achievement skills:
Achievement orientation, efficiency; Concern for order, quality, accuracy; Initiative, proactive approach; Problem-solving; Planning and organisation; Information exploring and managing; Autonomy.

The essence of this cluster is a tendency towards action, directed more at task accomplishments than impact on other people.

Cluster five: Cognitive skills:
Analytical thinking; Conceptual thinking. These two skills reflect an individual’s cognitive processes – how a person thinks, analyses, reasons, plans, thinks critically, identifies problems and situations and formulates explanations, hypotheses or concepts.

Although all skills, to some degree, can be transferred across jobs but it is these ‘softer’ skills, the transversal ones are seemingly valued as having a more important impact on success in life and certainly for working within and across innovation activities.

Distinguishing between hard and soft skills is important to achieve.

We all understand, sometimes frustratingly so,  that  Employers tend to distinguish the  hard skills such as job-specific skills closely connected with knowledge as they are far more  easily observed and/or measured and can be specifically trained.

Having these ‘hard skills’ can be overly rewarded due to this ability to measure more easily and then reinforced, often to the detriment of innovation that needs a healthy mix of all skills. Today thankfully there is a push that we do recognize and require more of a better mix of T-shaped occupational skills profiles.

Whereas soft skills such as non-job specific skills which are more closely connected with attitudes and necessary for innovation, that ‘can do’ aspect are far more intangible, and difficult to quantify and develop.

Recognition and assessment of transversal skills in new hires is also more difficult also and getting to understand these softer skills and within this report they lay out a suggested roadmap to build this more into the educational system and should be supported by specific systems, methods and tools.

A Suggested Transversal Skills Development Education Roadmap

I find this suggested roadmap discussed within the report as helpful but it is for the longer term. What can we do in the short to medium term?

There is increasing need for organizations and professional bodies to undertake a talent identification and development study, perhaps by using this suggested taxonomy and report as a base.

We do need to think through the ways to build into our training more of a transversal skill emphasis and talk more openly about these as increasingly needed for skill-related work within a networked economy where the softer skills are increasingly seen as important to have available.

I found this report a valuable read- it helps my thinking and ongoing work.

This report I found as a valuable read, it is part of the wider social agenda for modernizing Europe and along with the comprehensive sector studies the EU is mapping and evaluating the evolution of innovation, skills and jobs to begin to anticipate the needs emerging from the current restructuring being undertaken.

They see worrying signs of skill decline and a high increased demand for high skilled jobs, with service continuing to grow in importance. All of this will require new types and mixes of employees and skill development within itself is going to be a crucial challenge.

We do need to manage and know what different skills do impact innovation activity; I think this report helps in this.

It certainly provides a clearer structure for my work in supporting organizations ability to build up their innovation capabilities and competencies.

The post Recognition of a better soft skill taxonomy for innovation first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.