Am I the only one getting overwhelmed in choice, underwhelmed in content value?

This is a bit of a long rant, so turn away now those who love all the free choices you currently have, don’t waste your time reading on.

Those a little more curious, as my friend Michael Fruhling always says in his useful blog “then read on, dear friends….”

What do you get of real value when it is offered free?
You are getting experts offering free webinars or short ‘tasters’ with even offers of “fly me to your destination- no fees just cover my costs”, others offering “join my (global) network” as entreaties. Then you are equally getting software providers giving their take on innovation solutions galore, with the “three lessons learnt” mantra as the takeaways.

These all increasingly add up to you being bombarded daily with their knowledge, that often you can’t really decide if it did have value or not, by the end of the hour you had invested.

Then you get the innovation community providers linking up, providing web chats, drawing in different and diverse opinions from practitioners, academics or specialists, under let’s “ask the experts”, all hosted and moved along to stay within the prescribed time period.

Yet even these are so often totally failing to get to solve your solutions, all you end up getting is their experiences or observations, in someone else’s often unrelated situation, that might even be dangerous to extract and simply apply.

Maybe this is a bad day for me.

I am getting really frustrated by this constant ‘streaming’. I know I can ignore it, click the invite off, I can simply tune out and I think this is where many of us all seem to be heading. Are we really getting the value out of these ‘free’ offers?

You can go on and add in the free mix, different academic courses being offered on innovation from one day, to three days, a week or even longer as on-line courses by providers building their brand for the future. Then you are getting the “upgrade or get left behind” messages from all these. Are these really worth the time investment or just self-promoting?

I’m constantly being told I need upgrading on my innovation skills, nudged to check out the latest software update, and enticed to participate in a debate. It simply goes on and on.

Can it stop? Should it? Will it?

Then we have conference and forum providers for anything innovation, be this open innovation, CEO’s, social innovation, digital innovation. Then you have these consistent meetings offered by the European Union or different institutions, non-profit making organizations etc., etc for half-days- are they mad in what this means in invested time, or are we simply mad to go?

We have so much time on our hands, really?

I certainly can’t afford the time. And then for what, some long introductions and a few ‘choice’ bullet points. Thank god for streaming these live events so you can tune out much but being there, can you run and hide? Did I mention the radio talk shows, and book publicity videos?

Then you have the reading material. OMG! That is me included here! We do need a break from all this, we are all progressively tuning out, not actually in.

Can we afford to miss out- our Kiasu fears– many it seems are saying yes and exactly doing that, others seem caught in this fear of missing out.

Real lasting value or just simply filling in our time?

No seriously, we are so far running ahead of ourselves in delivering ‘something’ as service providers but is it of real, lasting value? We have opened up the spigot to allow a deluge of “anyone” who can simply take hold of an idea or a thought, quickly put it together through a host of technologies and social platforms, so as to deliver their contribution to the mountain of advice equally piling on, I mean mountains of advice.

Can we call stop, surely we are all gradually switching off or do we just totally tune out? I believe clients, meaningful decision-makers in clients are tuning out, as they surely do not have the time for all this.

I just feel we are all getting a little frantic in offering free advice

How can we get back to the basics within innovation, those that can put to simplification back in innovation? Well actually getting back to the basics on anything come to think of it?

I was reading a short article from Ron Asakenas over on Forbes (subject innovation) commenting about “It’s time to simplify innovation”. He prompted this post of mine. His opener I liked:

“Innovation is one of the most popular topics in the world these days, with new books and articles on the subject appearing almost daily. (For example, there are over 70,000 book listings about innovation in Amazon). The problem is that nobody quite knows what the word actually means.

Instead, we’ve gotten tangled up in all of the variations, nuances, tools, techniques, models, frameworks, and paradigms of innovation. So what was once a simple concept — the idea of systematically finding, encouraging, and implementing new ideas — has become horribly complex. Unfortunately, by complexifying innovation, we’ve probably started to kill it.

To reverse this trend, we need to simplify how we approach innovation – by better defining what it is (and isn’t), what it takes to carry it out, and what is needed to enable truly new thinking to thrive”

Personally, I really am not so sure we can reverse this trend but we do need new thinking.

The technology is becoming so pervasive, it just seems to get easier to ‘knock out’ a presentation, offer a webinar, or write an article. We are in a ‘swamp’ of material ‘up to our necks’.

We are making innovation complex, needlessly complicated and increasingly unattractive. We are failing in really “moving that innovation needle” because we are getting more and more people simply “tuning out” and the more we try, the more they reject this and then seemingly tune out even more. We are simply the dog chasing its own tail and enjoying it because we know no better.

The real art of engagement is being lost.
I’m noticing more and more, poorer engagement by everyone, we are in the deteriorating engagement cycle. Where are the meaningful dialogues instead of the ‘like’ symbol?

It is harder to grab someone’s attention, and hold it sufficiently long enough to move through an issue to the next one. We are all becoming so distracted and I’m struggling with an answer to how we collectively can pull back and recalibrate around innovation knowledge and its meaningful exchange?

I’m all for seeking simplification but for innovation to really return and begin to move ahead again it needs this engagement but it needs equally for me, every time, context.

For me Context is King

Maybe it is the one real arbiter of success; it really provides the need to simplify. In an innovation process, context becomes the most important arbiter of success, it is the point we gather around to understand so we can see and understand our role and contribution.

Sorting through for simplification and worthwhile engagement for all concerned

Here is my first attempt to recalibrate all this current flow of (harmful) innovation ‘intensity’. Just an opening suggested context framing, for sorting through this deluge of workshops, and webinars and getting them more personal in simplification, solving needs and offering value.

It needs more work but goes like this for all the multitude of organizations (and individuals) offering innovation advice that needs to reconsider what they are offering and need to ask a set of pre-qualifier questions:

One– If the idea, approach or value proposition isn’t aligned with the needs of the firm or the corporate strategy, (also context) then it will most probably be ignored and tuned out by those we are in need to actually engage with. Do we bother?

Two– How can these ‘open’ webinar sessions be aligned PRIOR, otherwise we end up with a service provider’s generic offering? It is up to the provider to understand the client’s needs, to perhaps work a lot harder on these, otherwise is not time relevant and valuable; it simply stays generic and less valuable. It simply is ‘casting around’ without knowing if there is any catch in this. A scatter-gun approach and not client targeted. Is this really worth all the effort?

Three– Once an idea, theme, the specific need is identified and ‘fleshed out’ and these have to be more client or issue/problem specific for clients to consider then they need clear deliverables not just boring ‘takeaways from mindlessly listening’ – what problem will it solve that is relevant to my issues, how can it be applied, its benefits and impact understanding. Can we deliver on this?

Four– Without this ‘need related’ information on the idea or concept delivered through a workshop, or webinar then it becomes too disconnected to adequately consider, evaluate and convert into useful consideration, then it is not worth it unless you want the simply curious how can afford the time but don’t make decisions. Is that worth all the costs involved?

Five– Surely as service providers if we fail to get through these ‘points of client relevancy’ then there is no new product or service connection or consulting engagement that most of this current activity is trying to generate. Then we should find another, perhaps those that are certainly much harder, to engage, as this easy route is not yielding a ‘reasonable’ return on all the ‘invested’ time. Well is it?

Stepping back to move forward.

There is nothing rocket science here in these five points to be considered but we do need to turn all this innovation advice, this deluge of stuff into something clearer, with a more specific value and context.

We do need to define this upfront far more. It means working on innovation a little harder before we rush to offer these webinars, conferences, half-day meetings.

It might mean less “bums on seat” for the webinar, so be it. If we can get ‘real engagement’ because we are closer to understanding specific needs and not opting for generic solutions, the quality of the material automatically lifts as the group tuning into it has a very specific interest that can have higher chances of leading onto ‘something’.

This automatically raises the engagement game, from the discussion and reduces the ‘also runs’ who don’t have the meaningful insight and knowledge that clients are actually needing to make this engagement really valuable to them.

It also stops the random roaming, the needless cruising around, the mindless listening to the droning on, that is taking place today. We begin to simplify as the context is clearer for us, the value exchange higher and the potential to advance from ‘free anything’ moves into showing that you (we), the provider of the service, have real value to bring into the conversation.

Today, finding good innovation insights that can be applied to a relevant situation that might be coming from general webinars, is a little like ‘panning for gold, it is back-breaking work in your investment in time and eventual application. Knowing the ‘needs specific’ means we can all ‘pan smarter’.

Where is the exchange point of money and value?

I always remember a lovely throwaway comment I heard years back when it came to client and consulting / advisory engagement

“If you wish to have value for money, would you give money for value”

Offering anything free I believe you are not offering any real value equation or much in my mind. Does Apple give anything away for free? No, it builds value through its offering or its partnerships and we need to go back and do this for the knowledge we are offering to prospective clients.

Where we are today with this “free” approach provides very little apart from sucking up an awful lot of everyone’s time and screwing up client-provider engagements into this “race to the bottom”.

We are sacrificing much in quality and carefully considered advice. I believe real decision-makers are tuned out from this channel to market approach mostly.

Now I’ve had my little rant I better go back and check out the value of my own webinars. Do they stack up to offering real value, in addressing specific needs? I’d like to believe so but this also does give me my own pause for thought and by the way, they are actually not free.

The post Tuning out, a need for simplification and better value first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Then you read in one of the latest McKinsey Quarterly’s articles about “the global company’s challenge” (http://tinyurl.com/8yvwsrv) suggesting many issues are needed to be faced within large global organizations, you get even more of a confirmation that all is not well for innovation.

Innovation’s future seems to need some wholesale changes to take place and those innovation leaders are facing multiple dilemmas and choices that can’t be ignored for much longer.

The issue is “are the leaders of these organizations up to the challenges?”
According to McKinsey, through a fairly extensive survey overall, global organizations are struggling to adapt in many areas. A year ago, McKinsey uncovered a “globalization penalty”: high-performing global companies consistently scored lower than more locally focused ones on several dimensions of organizational health.

For example, the former were less effective at establishing a shared vision, encouraging innovation, executing “on the ground,” and building relationships with governments and business partners.

Also another section of the CEB report states clearly that “the past decade of economic uncertainty made executive teams risk averse—focusing on incremental innovation to improve existing products and ensure more predictable, near-term revenue. In effect, these firms have been trading larger, higher-impact (and riskier) ideas for a greater number of smaller, more manageable (and less risky) ideas, causing incremental and next generation initiatives to dominate most innovation portfolios.  Incremental innovation still accounts for more than 80% of funded innovation initiatives”

The CEB report further goes on “With weakened ideation networks, stretched management, and ineffective global working relationships, many companies are hard-pressed to restock their innovation pipeline with breakthrough ideas. Without re-establishing the necessary organizational capabilities, companies are unlikely to shift their innovation portfolio fast enough to compete and win in new markets”.

It does offer the following glimmer of hope “while daunting, the challenges are not insurmountable” but let’s think more radically in resolving these barriers.

I think we should stop the innovation bus and re-evaluate where large organizations are really going.

In both reports they indicate fundamental underlying weaknesses that are not being fully addressed that seems to me is a major constraint on innovation. Unless those on the ever-moving faster wheel don’t pause and reflect they are just going to run harder and harder for diminishing returns and growing frustration, then they are facing the road to nowhere.

I think it is time to get off the existing tread mill and really begin to think through a major re-engineering of innovation.

Four tensions need addressing but differently for each organization

In many ways I like the McKinsey suggested four tensions they put forward as needing to be addressed in their article to be overcome; in managing strategy, people, costs, and risk on a global scale.

The importance of each of these four tensions will vary from company to company, depending on its particular operating model, history, and global footprint. My approach to these:

• Firstly manage within the global innovation team differently than today. We need to bring back strategic confidence and put a different stretch into the structure that builds on trust, on exchanging, on collaborating and building a deeper ,a  more globally spread experience level that is both dispersed, yet still globally orchestrated and one that is simply not imposed and driven centrally.

• Make people more the central asset to your accelerating innovation. Place more trust in them. Not by simply dumping more work upon them and asking them to fill in more forms for a central repository on their progress. Or equally demanding a constant feeding back, often in one-way conversations but in permitting the unleashing of the talent that does reside within and across organizations, so often buried, by giving it a higher level of trust and self-determination.

This would mean a much more focused coordinating platform that exchanges on mutual respect and value for each person’s contribution and value-generating contribution. Balancing local insight, adapting global brands and tailoring the final offering to tap into local opportunities needs a different approach than we are seeing today. Stop imposing, start listening and adapting and adjusting more to what is needed in local markets not ‘driven’ from some distant point of reference that needs significant compromise to meet different market demands.

• The huge advantage global organizations should have is simply being eroded more and more. Not just by the local more nimble competitor but more importantly by the way organizations seem to be structured in recent years. The advantage of shared infrastructures that large organizations are supposedly meant to have, does seems to me, all but eroded. You see the duplication in the system as often staggering.

The myths of shared services can be often illusionary, as well as more and more complexity is layered in the system to offset and counter potential risk. The growing cost of compliance, seeking global standards and coordinating these needs constant re-evaluation, cross-validation and assessment is pushing out products by turning them into just safe innovation. Often we are seeing even longer delivery-to-market time horizons with all these internal exchanges .  There is a real pressing need to release this layering-on effect and find new and different ways to speed up and become more adept and agile.

• Reducing risk often seems the first overriding priority in many large matured organizations. Take all the risk out of innovation and all you end up with the incremental approaches we are seeing today, all too often touted as innovation breakthroughs, what rubbish. Can this change, I think it must do, as real growth demands different solutions than what is being offered today, otherwise we will just simply ‘bounce along’ in slow growth across many industries.

How to manage a more diverse business portfolio in global organizations needs a different hedging policy to rebalance the risk premium with more of an adventurous exploration of innovation bets. Re-balancing infrastructures and deciding where to locate skills to support both a global business but with a greater diversity of innovation within local operations and regions is a tough challenge. Managing mind-sets and embedded thinking calls for a more radical overhaul if more breakthrough thinking is called for.

Each of these four tension points needs to be re-balanced, to be re-engineered. Innovation needs some radical re-thinking, a more ruthless review of what is working, what is holding it back.

To achieve this I feel a complete re-engineering approach to innovation is called for. Large organizations are strangling great innovation ideas at birth and slowly to death through a heavily compromised pipeline

These are being replaced with lacklustre concepts that are often boring their customers and compelling them to question the value and look more and more elsewhere, for solutions that fit their needs and pockets.

Otherwise, global scale will simply not matter if organizations can’t leverage the people on the ground, so as to link more specifically to the customer needs in different regions and markets and provide them with what they want.

The urgent need is to improve the organizations abilities to connect locally and adapt globally, not the other way around.

Yes, you can call that reverse re-engineering in the way you are managing innovation.

The post Establish a different global thinking for your innovation. first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

In the developed world we are consistently over-delivering innovation for many and there is a given cost to that, which we all pay for even though we often don’t really need it in the first place.

Take, for example, the software provided by Microsoft for its windows application, in its office versions, they all are over-specified for our personal needs.

The majority of these ‘sit’ on our computers taking up space and never used. This continued requirement which we are forced to constantly upgrade requires us to seek more computing power yet it is really inappropriate for most people’s needs.

Perhaps with cloud computing, we can see more ‘stripped down’ versions from Microsoft in the future that reduce the initial purchase price, give us a basic kit to work within and through the use of cloud computing as and when we need additional software, we can go and download it by paying an ‘appropriate’ fee to either use it as a one off or to download it onto our computer.

We achieve less clutter on our computer, faster start up and performance times, latest applications and a better way to manage our personal needs in a constantly tailored way, appropriate innovation.

Appropriate innovation is possible to be applied increasingly on many products and services with a different thinking of product or service final delivery. It is actually going on in many ways today but it has not been perhaps focused upon enough, in a way that leads to a transformation to meet the times we live in.

These need to be more thrifty, tapping into a market need of more inexpensive alternatives that deliver to people the appropriateness at the involvement level they want or can afford to get the job done .

The internet can play an increasing part in this as it can allow us to tap into what we need when we need it. What needs to happen is this philosophy of appropriateness needs to be adopted by more firms and this ‘mind shift’ might lead to significant growth, adjusting there ability to deliver over specified solutions into ones that simply do the job.

Keeping it simple is a present problem we need to tackle in developed countries, not just developing countries. We need to draw more people into usage, but avoiding additional unnecessary functions so scaling out of fit for the work, enables growing markets, extracting greater potential and achieving deeper market penetration.

Appropriate Innovation is not new, in actually comes in a number of well-articulated guises already.

Clayton Christensen outlines his thoughts on disruptive innovation and he has written extensively about this approach. He argues by doing a clear jobs-to-be-done analysis you can spot market opportunities, not just for segments of under-served but those that are over- served that are ripe for disruption and new products or services that meet that ‘sweet spot’.

We tend to see this more for developing countries but increasingly I would argue we need to apply this thinking to developed markets that are presently bogged down with little growth and market stimulus.

The second aspect of appropriateness has been discussed by Vijay Govindarajan as reverse innovation. He points out the rise from globalization, that organizations are applying reverse innovation by taking products and services developed specifically for the developing world that can become the new oxygen for future growth globally.

He argues “many western multinationals with all their resources, technical superiority, and established global presence are being beaten to the punch. In the developing world, local competitors are often at the forefront of economic expansion.

They are very different organizations in very different places, in very different industries. yet all are leaving established multinationals in their wakes- not just in emerging markets but also in developed markets.”

He states “that the biggest opportunity for multinationals in the next 25 years is to focus on the vast segment of unserved and underserved in poor countries.” Reverse innovation is not only required to capture growth in emerging markets; it will fuel future growth of multinationals in their home markets. It does this through a more appropriate innovation approach, aligning clear, specific needs and tailoring products and services to meet those.

VG defines reverse innovation as very simply, any innovation likely to be adopted first in the developing world whereas a  disruptive innovation has a particular dynamic that endangers incumbents but both have ‘appropriateness’ to meeting need.

Recently the consulting company, A D Little, was discussing the future of innovation management and within one of its five concepts to watch it introduced frugal innovation.

It sees new segments, new needs emerging that require a more radical new low cost. This frugality and affordability will alter the mindset of many.

Present societies regarded as affluent will need to adapt and reduce down on their current expectations and fit their circumstances accordingly with ‘appropriate’ innovation that serves their specific needs.

Frugal innovation can be interchanged a lot with reverse innovation. Frugal innovation brings about a rethinking of the nature of innovation. Instead of “more” it is often striving for “less”, using clever technology to create greater simplification with a huge potential across many fields of product and service to allow society and individuals greater engagement at an appropriate cost.

There is a huge potential in considering these three concepts

If you take an argument of VG’s that there are three primary situations of 1) income gaps, 2) infrastructure gaps and 3) sustainability gaps and seeing we are increasingly suffering from these in the developed world as well as the developing world, they can really offer rich opportunities to view innovation through new lenses of appropriateness

All three concepts match to appropriate innovation- matching appropriate needs and innovations and aligning them to give a real growth potential.

Barriers and resistance

For all three concepts, there is a real need to change the existing mindsets. You must overcome resistance to shifting power and control away from headquarters, from a selected few and they must be willing to reshape the organizational models to be a more flexible.

You must overcome the initial resistance to prioritizing an investment that does not initially seemingly serve what you think are the interests of your mainstream customers.

Each can cannibalise on existing concepts and this is a tough path to travel and break out but there is, even more, a pressing need to ‘go where the growth is’.

Appropriate Innovation is a real way forward to growing business.

The organizations that learn to shift towards “bottom-up” innovation could provide the impetus needed to develop successful innovation-for-development strategies that meet appropriate customer needs. This is the approach to start.

People are often impatient; they don’t want to wait for solutions that are not appropriate they are seeking ones that fit their pocket, fit their needs.

To discover these untapped new markets although it is not so clear cut initially is to perform a very precise jobs-to-be-done market analysis to discover these underserved needs.

To meet this need we should create a culture of inventing more convenient, lower-cost, appropriately specified, perhaps more on-demand products and services. In this way, we can attract a larger population to tap into a greater market potential for appropriate services and products/.

There are plenty of people who would be happy to purchase a product with less (but good enough) performance if they could get it at a lower price but where there is still going to be a reasonable margin for the providers.

There are increasing ways to deliver ‘stripped down’ versions of nearly everything.

We just need to learn what is appropriate, move to greater simplicity and deliver appropriate innovation to meet given needs.

The post Appropriate Innovation Makes Good Sense. first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.