How often do you pause for thought, testing yourself, questioning even simply for ‘just those few minutes,’  to allow yourself to openly challenge where you are and what you are attempting to do?

We keep relentlessly moving on, like a wandering herd of buffalo, always looking for fresh pasture, those new feeding grounds. It’s not good.

Of course, I often get caught up in this restless pursuit of gathering more, when I spend a growing amount of my time researching innovation. I keep coming across so many things that ‘trigger’ the thinking, pushing me on.

Do you let them go, ignore them, quickly pass over them, or attempt to capture the issue as something well worth investigating further at a later stage, or just get them simply behind you in the here and now.

I think I must be reverting back more into a hunter-gatherer, in my case upon innovation insights; collecting the raw material that I am looking to eventually translate and distribute as this growing knowledge stock.

The outcome  I trust is moving me slowly towards becoming an innovation curator, hopefully, valued by others. Well, it’s a goal.

I also regularly need what I call my ‘walkabout’ moments to chill out and regroup.

Walkabout is best known when an Australian Aborigine undergoes a journey, wandering in the wilderness for periods as long as six or so months.

This wandering mostly becomes a rite of passage, in my case my walkabout’s are aimed to move my innovation understanding from one state to another, hopefully improving by what I have learnt and gathered.

I have so often to force myself to stop being a collector of ‘all things new’ that is written about innovation. I keep attempting to put as many of the existing pieces together, searching for the patterns and insights, trying to make a different sense to them, with the aim to add further to the innovation stock and innovation capital.

Presently I am in the middle of a digital and paper clear-up ready for another walkabout

Either the mass of papers that I confess I’ve printed out so I can highlight, scribble over and allow these to ‘fester’ a little longer, so the ideas permeate through my thick skull or my digital collection all need shaping differently. I’m been busy working through my digital library, whipping this back into a decent shape after a heavy collecting period of interesting articles that all need to be referenced for future use.

There is so much to explore, it does get overwhelming and this is why these ‘walkabout’s help clear my brain (and my desk). I also use mind mapping software to capture much so the different patterns and connections can become a little more coherent, well for me at least.

Craving for the innovative open road

I do like the idea of an open road on where we can go and what we might explore but we actually do need to take some time to choose the routes, even when much of it can be serendipitous, as it has to contribute ‘just’ beyond knowledge into something valuable.

In our investigations we need to watch out for all the signs (not necessarily signposts)  along the way, those signals, patterns and emerging trends as we both search the horizon but equally in fully appreciating what is all around us, as we travel building our understanding on that journey.

I often feel I am a journey man and I’m certainly comfortable with that.
I have to admit, I am a happy man playing in my innovation sandpit, linking these thoughts into emerging solutions to tackle some client problems, move innovation along or answer some questions posed.

I work on these for others on given value propositions around the following: “you need someone who can put clear coordinates into the innovation world“.

I keep moving towards this concept of being a curator of innovation, collecting and distributing it, interpreting it, re-ordering it to meet specific needs. To do this I need to keep up a given rhythm, filtering and funneling, dampening or magnifying this growing knowledge around innovation.

I enjoy this but it does take up more time than I can sometimes really afford. I think I need an investor who see’s value in structuring this into an innovation knowledge platform, until then, if ever, I travel my path.

 “Time starved, knowledge poor,” so when do we gain the luxury to think

When do we find the time to really delve into the necessary understanding for innovation in deeper and valuable ways. We are often just ‘reacting to daily issues’ and constant crisis as we are so focused on the delivery of short-term results.

We lack a space where we can explore thoughtful analysis, deepen our personal knowledge and make all the right connections we would ideally like. We lack time and insights that can give greater direction or answers.

We are needing those personal ‘curated’ spaces where our particular interest builds up in the required knowledge (collect, manage and apply) to then be able to build from this and move onto the next knowledge stream of value to you. We never find the ongoing opportunity to alter our innovation understanding and influence our future delivery.

What would help here? Is it innovation coaching, mentoring, providing an innovation knowledge platform, a place to go and find content-rich insights that yield impact and give a renewed intensity? What would be attractive? What would give to your understanding of innovation and its management?

How does one offer such a personal space where you can draw in the knowledge and interpret it in your way, appropriate to meet your innovation goals?

Also I’m enjoying some sparring, exchanging, and developing as ongoing.

I’m also caught up in a great discussion with my occasional sparring partner Jeffrey Phillips of Ovo, this time around in change, culture and innovation and I think this will eventually emerge as a further piece of collaborative work between us.

This will follow on from our collaborations around the Innovation Executive Work Mat , where we have been seeking out common cause and building strategic and innovation alignment, along with our earlier attempts to describe a “Collaborative innovation reference model“, published under “reducing innovation mysteries” and on its homepage.

I’ve written before about “finding our true purpose” and working the innovation space is mine to explore and think through. As I stated in that post, mine is increasingly focused upon:

“Establishing the ‘new’ often means moving beyond the already ‘known’, it is to experiment with sometimes the untried, to learn, to achieve faster and improved results, to evolve and push boundaries. This needs fresh perspectives and dedicated innovation knowledge. I attempt to offer those insights and guidance in the emerging areas of innovation”

Off on another innovation walkabout, it is about time, hopefully, the answers will keep coming from the time hopefully well spent.

*Amended on 16.04.2015

The post Walkabouts are needed for learning and testing ourselves first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Schumpeter saw “creative destruction” as the renewing, through new innovation, society’s dynamics that would lead to higher levels of economic development and welfare.

At the same time recognizing that this destroyed a few of the incumbents to the benefit of many more newcomers and increasing value creation for broader society.

Today it seems we are caught in the reverse of this- the process of “destructive creation”- where it benefits a few rather than the many. This sets out often to destroy or greatly diminish the usage value of existing products and services before it is optimal to actually do so, and in the process incurring often significant costs not taken into account at the time.

These unforeseen issues have consequences that negatively affect parts of society not foreseen or contemplated at the time.
The shift has placed the emphasis on the role of destruction rather than creation in driving innovation activity. This is getting uncomfortable, innovation then becomes not so good for you perhaps? This is becoming the game for a few to make money, to corner markets, to dominate and wanting to achieve monopolistic positions and not so worried over the wealth creation aspects of creating jobs, building communities, cherishing certain values.

We need to be on guard in understanding the fundamentals within innovation as it should advance for the good of society, not be actually working to its detriment.

Actually who is benefiting from the distribution of new wealth? The developed world is seeking desperately ways to regain growth but it needs to be more equitable, not in the hands of a few that determine our choices but increasingly seem unaccountable for their actions.

Firstly a couple of examples of “creative destruction”

A really good one was the arrival of the personal computer, the economy significantly profited without significant economic upheaval. It raised productivity and ushered in significant value for many.  The typewriter of course quickly became obsolete for this “creative destruction” and certainly the organizations investing in this lost out.

Another one has been the general advancement of technology. For example within the telecom sector where we were able to benefit from massive increases in managing data, calls and volumes around the world to connect us all up into a global economy.

Old switchboards, chunky mainframes and old communicating technology were thrown out and this advancement in technology allowed the scarce resource of people to be employed differently and more productively.

Technology has provided huge advancements but it also has its downsides.

The problem both of these examples have though is they are technology lead. Technology has been racing ahead. With the active encouragement of “policy innovation” and its stimulus, we have been building more complexity as technology became more powerful. Complexity is everywhere.

You add in scientific advances it has been a powerful combination effect of promoting social change- often radical social change. All positive, or has it been?

Today, we are dependent on complex technological systems to manage much, often incomprehensible to most if not all of us. Let me give you a couple of examples of the growing downsides we are seeing.

Let me provide some examples of “destructive creation”

Derivatives- that dirty word that we have been struggling with over the past few years, that has been causing much within our current global downturn.

At its heart was a system no one quite understood that created mortgage leverages, financial convertibles and it was in this proliferation of complexity and uncertainly these highly leveraged investments had become totally incoherent to us.

The “destructive creation” part then kicks in often in unexpected ways with tragic consequences for many in lost jobs, lost homes, lost lives and lost investment money for  many, while a few made massive gains.

Asia was another example; its lightening speed in its growth had lead to a recent financial crisis simply triggered by capital account converting that shifting into a myriad of different financial instruments. The downside of that had not been anticipated in policy intervention and we had a significant scale of financial destruction that was not creative but destructive in its effect to the economies for some time.

Again many people lost out, for some, recovery from this effect never occurred -it changed their lives, often to start again.

Although we are told there are sound risk models in place to assess and antiscipate, we certainly can’t look upon the promise from these with the same naivety in the future after a number of recent events. Much seems unpredictable in hidden consequences.

But I would ask “have we lost the plot a little here”, perhaps we can’t really predict and control anymore, when the complexities we have built still continue and add even more layers. We need to accept more ‘destructive creation’ will occur.

The destructive effects presently going on in Europe

Let’s take Greece and its ‘melt down’ of the past twelve months. Could we have predicted the massive social unrest and serious economic decline in the approaches taken by the parties responsible for managing an orderly recovery?

How many times are we hearing “structural adjustment” to cover massive upheaval and watching a civil collapse happening on front of our eyes. Thousands of previously healthy businesses in Greece are being starved of finances, of demand and caught up in such social upheaval.

This is destructive creation for the many who have got caught up in the ‘collective adjustment’ applied.

How will the Euro shake out in the coming months when our leaders just seem unable to get their heads around its complexity? This is a proliferation of complexity fuelling uncertainty.

Is this because we have been great inventors and innovators or poor at working through all the consequences as analytics alone can’t explain these things in coherent ways, we just watch “destructive forces” being applied in the name of social and structural adjustment sweep away whole swaths of creative good as well.

The pursuit of growth and wealth is fine but are we balancing the conflicting values, consequences and upheavals well enough in the equation, otherwise it tips from this “creative destruction” over into “destructive creation” and that is not a healthy place for innovation to be.

The obsession with innovation- myself included!
Presently our Governments are obsessed with innovation- it sometimes feels it is the only game in town for future growth. Let’s just keep adding novelty and ever increasing value to get our economies going seems to be the mantra.

The problem is we seem to be destroying more than we can build at present, yet a ‘few’ gain from these seeds of “destructive creation” while a majority don’t. We need to flip this back to “creative destruction”.

How much of a society cost are we prepared to pay? Should all this be laid at the door of innovation? We need to inquire about, to explain and understand these forces, both the positive and negative far more.

You can get to a certain point where you hit innovation saturation and we will begin to reject it unless we see its value invested within our community, not in others far away.

The replacement rate is speeding up

The other part of “destructive creation” is the attention we are all paying to the replacement rate. The way we discard our mobile phones, cars, household goods and creative increasing ‘toxic’ waste has its destructive creation part. These were foreseen, even have been actively encouraged to promote our economic well being but are they?

I know Steve Jobs and what he built at Apple is regarded as a beacon of success but there is a darker side to this. High rates of innovation, often not truly needed, can be disruptive to the larger society as a whole.

A few jobs, many outsourced into low cost environments is leading to a jobless growth in the rest of the industry, it is destroying the usage value (useful life left) of existing products to the benefit of the few, rather than the many.

Some might call this a “shutdown game” establishing conditions that negatively affect values of other products, or is that still called offensive marketing, knowing exactly what the customer needs? I’m not 100% convinced.

Shareholder value is our focus point but what about the shut downs, those old, empty, rusty building that seem to be increasing not decreasing. We are faced more with de-industrialization issues than seeing re-industrialization coming from the present ‘destruction’ forces unleashed upon us all today.

What is the cost of disruption and destruction of whole communities in social costs, in our investments for the future when we can’t ‘feel’ or see the benefits of “creative destruction” emerging?

There are many industries that start out thinking they are on the path to “creative destruction” but somewhere along the road got flipped into “destructive creation”. Often this was not the intended path but it became the consequence. Adding more just reinforced the greater destruction leaving it less creative, except in pockets of expertise.

Pressures suddenly built. Competition fell away, they went into troughs of uninspiring innovation for some time. Consumer software upgrades come to mind here, killing off perfectly good software to force us into upgrading but actually pushing us to search for alternatives, killing off useful gained knowledge and continued utility. Where is the cross over point in “creative” and “destruction”?

The quicker we adapt, the sharper we suffer declines somewhere else- technological choices and social consequences- new gadgets vs. decline in privacy for example. Yet the total industry consequence of one party dominating in “destructive creation” is only seen that much later on when the total decline cannot be stopped.

It is often not one parties fault unless they are deliberate in their design but we are losing the ability to understand all the consequences of decisions, with unforeseen knock-on consequences .

For instance, if our banks don’t change as society is perceiving they should, and the policy makers seem unable to work through the complexity of this level of change, then society has two choices: remain with the present system where a few seem to gain over the majority, or seek out a change in the financial lending system so society again puts back “creative” at the front of “destruction” to benefit the broader community.

Let’s be honest, the banking industry has not been so innovative in many ways, besides enhancing wealth creation by the use of financial instruments or just to constantly sustain the existing ‘world order’. Will an alternative to our existing financial system evolve and or disrupt, but at what destructive cost?

Disconnects are all around.

There is, when you look around, a lot of seemingly partial and disconnected aspects to our advancement. Where are we in our debates on climate change, stem cell research, toxic chemicals, landfills and plenty more.

How will we manage the feeding of the world in years to come? How will we manage the old and sick. How will society re-integrate growing groups who are getting disenfranchised? All of these can be destructive or built on constructive ways that ‘create’ orderly change. Yet, they seem bogged down in complexity, and opposing forces and we are not breaking through these in new order ways. We somehow must.

There are always it seems contesting sides and consistent daily arguments from all sides in complex arguments about how the world would work and why their solution provides the answer. The problem is we simply don’t know. We seem to be losing comprehension of the bigger picture. I’m not sure when you try to describe the big picture it really is so coherent and that is one of our big problems.

Issues are just far too complex.

We are facing more uncertainly and incoherence than ever. Should we call a moratorium on innovation or is it just invention? Can we afford too?

It is interesting observation, we do seem to have moved back to enjoy narratives, myths and cult stories more than in the past, is that a yearning for something from the past in our  lives where one person tells a story that just made sense as it seemed full of wisdom and real good for many?

I think we, as humans, have been reduced down and until we can regain mastery over the complex, needing a structural and societal adjustment or we otherwise will continue to suffer the consequences of “destructive creation.”

I think we might start yearning for the good old days of just “creative destruction.” Is technology leading and we are lagging? Can we regain control?

So some commentators have suggested that we have to reawaken our imaginations and really think deeply about our values. Then innovation can perhaps return to being context-specific working in positive enhancing ways to improve society as a whole and not be used for a selected few.

All I hope is it will let us ensure we put the emphasis back far more on the “creative” innovation part and not the ‘destructive’ nature we have been moving towards recently.

Certainly inspired and some points are drawn from the paper “Destructive Creation and the New World Order” by Paul Harris & Daniel Sarewitz

The post The Innovating Era: Creative Destruction or Destructive Creation? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

The Corporate Innovation Manager- is stuck in the middle.

Recently I was going through a report, a very helpful one, by link  http://bit.ly/gWqmO7 supplied by www.innovationmanagement.se on the Corporate Innovation Function- key findings and detailed results, commissioned by HEC Paris.

I was also reading  some views expressed by  Reinhard Büscher, Head of Innovation Policy at the European Commission, http://bit.ly/eB02ZR on the role of the innovation manager (IM).

Both paint a rather dismal picture of the position of the Innovation Manager within organizations- very fuzzy not yet well defined.
Briefly although HEC’s study suggests the main role of the IM is to create growth and to differentiate the company in its markets but it also paints the IM into a corner and certainly not in the corner office!

The IM seems to be locked into the process of managing ‘just’ innovation projects, fighting the resistances and misunderstanding of middle managers and relying on symbolic projects that are short term. Mr. Büscher seems to be equally implying IM’s (current) role is managing the contractual innovation process.

Also both see the IM as often self-taught, limited in organised help, needing resources, having a reliance on external consultants and that the roles are very much a work-in-progress where the IM has limited time to explore and learn, they are busy fixing the plumbing!

Can this perception be reality and can it be altered, should it be?

This is a shame, a great shame, if both observations reflect the present evolution of IM. It is further back than I thought, hence why I’m more concerned than I should be.

If the IM is consigned to this as his role- managing the process; innovation will never rise up fully to the top of the organization, it will be consigned to specialists and board members will simply just refer to ‘these’ people, as and when. Innovation will never achieve the necessary daily ongoing dialogue in and around the board if it stays locked outside. How can this be altered?

Innovation is consistently ranked among the top three strategic imperatives within organizations yet it is not fully represented by an Innovation Management specialist. Can you imagine not having finance in board meetings?

Of course innovation is represented part-time, by the Marketing Director, by the Research Director, by anyone who wants to jump on the innovation bandwagon if it fits their personal agendas. I’ve read it should be the CEO’s role but 99% of the time it is not, much as it would often like to be. Will it change? If so soon?

Some personal suggestions- firstly the recognition of IM’s problems lie deep.

Julian Birkenshaw & Gary Hamel have been arguing about the need for Management Innovation for some time, visit their site of the Management Innovation Exchange or the MIX (http://bit.ly/aodOaE  ).

They state the most critical challenges facing management today and relevant to the IM’s role.

1. We need to retrain managerial minds- wealth creation needs creativity skills and we need to reduce down the reliance on analytical and deductive skills.
2. We need to unleash human imagination. The lack of often human engagement is not given enough space today in the traditional organizational structures, this is suppressing the flow of knowledge.
3. The depoliticising of decision making. The personal agenda’s at all levels of organizations blocks. Autocratic leaders, stubborn middle managers and an organization steadfastly refusing to change still prevails in many instances.
4. A lack of holistic performance measures. Often the bias towards quantifiable, short term metrics and narrow stakeholder interests tend to dominate. How can a broader set of stakeholders needs be accounted for, especially the consumer. Measuring on the impact of our activities on the ‘multiple’ communities touched is beginning to emerge. There is hope IM will get more onto this agenda as it can drive this substantially.
5. The overworked dual dilemma of reducing fear, increasing trust is the last one of the five challenges. The nagging sense of uncertainty dampens initiatives and supports mediocrity. The ability to manage this is vital for innovation to permeate down an organization. It can be such a positive force to bridge this fear versus trust equation that will always be in ‘play’ and needs active balance in our uncertain world.

What can the IM do about overcoming these 5 big challenges?

Firstly they have to be acknowledged, recognized. A bit like Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) perhaps- they need talking about. They need framing and this leads to another part of the Mix story

What is stopping IM’s moving forward?

•  Limited bandwidth: not enough time or resources- how to build slack into the role, how to show increased long term value.
• Surrounded by old and orthodox thinking- where to seek out like-minded individuals
• Disincentives to act: fear of change, executive self-interest- prepared to disrupt the status quo by seizing on all the winds of change swirling around the organization and offering a road map out of these through innovation.

Of course there is a big gap between healthy rhetoric and reality-addressing this is something we need to do.
Here are some of my thoughts, supplemented by others within this blog site already outlined that might help in thinking this through.

The best step is to build a deep capacity for innovation within yourself.
This needs to become an overwhelming force of innovation knowledge and value that it gets noticed, it gets valued, it gets appreciated, it gets adopted by many who see the value in following this approach.

It trickles down and contributes everywhere. It is truly open innovation management.

Firstly, it is based on the five essential skills the external consultant should posses as the IM is the internal consultant, the Intrapreneur that is working towards recognition and seeking change. These are:

•  Persuading– the proposing and reasoning
•  Asserting– setting expectations, evaluating, using incentives
•  Bridging– involving, listening, disclosing everyone to everyone.
• Attracting– finding common ground and painting a vision that others share.
• Moving away– the disengaging where necessary and the avoiding to reduce conflict and confrontation.

Secondly, IM has a role of advocacy, supportive and a real broker of innovation knowledge that helps others in their roles. These form the three inter-related circles that provide a IM’s true value.

Thirdly, the person needs to focus on four aspects that they measure themselves against in their daily tasks to act and contribute, manage and support

1. Have Creativity and Continuous Improvement as a consistent MUST.
2. Risk-taking for calculated risks and entrepreneurial push always in the mind.
3. Relationship building to maintain and build relationships that are through visible networks
4. Implementation obsession that always wants to turn ideas into actions, then into results that are seen and valued to have impact and return.

Fourthly, develop or work actively upon important personal characteristics

• A person that has innovation in their DNA, that possess that natural inclination to explore and articulate and not just passing through, they are in for the long run. .
• Already s very experienced and capable strategic thinker with the ability to extract and shape those ideas on the journey to commercialization for others to ‘see’.
• Solid and broad strategic and commercial tactical experience;  you can quickly zero in on the core challenges and then map these out, creating an inspiring plan of action to address them that gains identification, balances reality and pushes beyond to achieve something new and different.
• Creative Sensibilities and a Contagious Positive Passion: You get excited by big transformational ideas but you work tirelessly on moving innovation through the system.
• You have strong opinions: always ready to defend your gut feel but support it with commercial and strategic rationale by seeking it out and bringing it to the decision table.

Fifthly, manage the Ten Commandments for IMs (Timothy Schellhardt, adapted)

1. Do any job needed to make your project work regardless of your job description if it promotes innovation.
2. Share credit wisely and lavishly.
3. Remember, it is easier to ask for forgiveness than seek permission
4. Come to work each day willing to be fired, ready to be hired.
5. Ask for advice before asking for resources, so essential.
6. Follow your intuition about people; build a team of the best or always want to work with the best, others will follow quickly to be part of it.
7. Build a quiet coalition for your idea, early publicity triggers the corporate immune system and let the results deliver the message so it becomes ‘invented here, supported there’.
8. Never bet on a race unless you are willing to run in them to the end and if you have to, then run it to the end.
9. Be true to your goals, but realistic about ways to achieve them. Set challenges for yourself that grow your innovation knowledge stock on a daily basis irrespective of pressures.
10. Honor your sponsors, never talk behind their backs, and always talk them up irrespective but factually and with decent insight.

Six, have a clear roadmap- agreed as you enter the job and to be measured against.

This should include:

• Clarity about the innovation strategy and how, where and why it fits from the Board- no one else so you have a clear mandate that you apply.
• Ensure recognition is being granted for a place on innovation at all management meetings at all levels to raise its importance. Establish that.
• Get innovation seen as the ‘beating heart’ of all work that creates value and provide the message, time and time again until all hear it.
• Design a clear strategy to break down the resistance at middle management level from day one and reduce their misunderstanding and personal fears of what you represent and get that measured by others to show progress.
• Seek to take a longer-term perspective on actions, orientation and solutions and make sure this is balanced against the daily delivery need of the role.
• Build a network of collaborators, integrate IM knowledge, offer collaborative tools and create simple but reliable innovation tools and get those out!
• Make sure you can be judged on projects moved through the innovation process and you have identified key success indicators for impact, value and return, however crude.
• Traverse across the whole organization, don’t favor one group over another but equally be realistic in where the resources and mutual support derives from.

Finally, yes SEVEN, do use those external consultants, the ones that bring deep innovation knowledge to your issues and challenges. Rely on them to provide you leading practice, common-sense advice and deep emersions into subjects and topics you need answers too but can’t find the time to investigate.

They can become your personal innovation coach, managing the innovation stock and ensuring the innovation knowledge stock is flowing through you.  This is far more than training or simply information; it is them possessing deep competences in the subject of innovation that you need to extract  and apply to your situation.

The innovation manager needs a new agenda.

One that reflects the value and importance of innovation inside (and outside) the organization. If this is not well articulated, the role will be consigned to being delegated down the organization and I’m not sure it can afford to be.

The post Accelerating the evolution of Innovation Management PLEASE! first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.