Often innovation succeeds or fails by the personal involvement and engagement of a ‘selected’ few. Recognizing the types of innovation leadership might help you manage the innovation work a little better.

So can you recognize the traits of your innovation leader?

Are they a front-end or back-end innovation leader? Here’s how you can begin to spot the difference.

Before we climb into this

I recall enjoying a book published a few years back, “Innovation Governance- how top management organizes and mobilizes for innovation”, written by Jean-Philippe Deschamps and Beebe Nelson. I can totally recommend it as it is so rich in thinking through much around innovation, placed within this governance framework. It lays out a clear improvement path for innovation to travel. I am drawing from this book on some thoughts about innovation leadership.

The author’s view argues that organizations are traditionally tribal and as innovation is a highly complex corporate activity, which crosses many boundaries both within and outside the organization, it needs clear governance and structures to manage these dynamics of often conflicting and differing goals, expertise and interests. Often each group possesses its own rules, its own judgment of what is important, and this ‘creates’ the absolute need to have a mechanism that ‘cuts’ across these potential barriers.

So can you recognize your innovation leader?

According to the authors of “Innovation Governance”, you need the right combination of front-end and back-end leaders, since the two types are complementary. An example of a front-end leader in pharmaceutical firms is typically found as heads of discovery, often under the leadership of the chief research officer. Whereas back-end leaders would tend to be in charge of clinical development, manufacturing, or marketing-driven activities.

The best way to identify these two types of leaders is often their functional orientation, possible background disciplines, and their general management interest and attitudes.

A good example of this ‘divide’ is between two really famous leaders that have propelled Apple to the top in innovation and sustained execution Steve Jobs and Tim Cook of Apple. Both have been highly visible and well cited in personality, backgrounds, and interests. As described well within the book this difference is best illustrated by this Apple leadership comparison.

The front-end leader.

Steve Jobs was clearly a front-end leader. He constantly sought out more radical creativity in design and end product results. Let’s make clear distinctions on what we think we know of the persons involved.

• He had a real passion for new ideas, exploring and combining different thinking and designs, searching for solutions to customers’ unarticulated needs to improve their product experience.
• He was constantly questioning the status quo and challenging (extremely hard) the team around him with constant how, what if, what else, why not type questions.
• He had a more entrepreneurial flair and more of a venture capital mentality regarding returns and risks; he kept focusing on ‘big win’ promises.
• He had this belief to constantly experiment, to open up new paths and different thinking and he looked to accept the risk and tolerate failure by moving through the ‘dwelling stage’ into the ‘learning from’ set of insights.
• He encouraged individuals to have a degree of freedom, he challenged them constantly, and he expected a climate of mental adventure and excitement to attract others into the organization but these were made up of a diversity of backgrounds. His own background was rich in diversity and inquiry.
• Finally, his tolerance levels were often ‘explosive’ but he generated the level of commitment to producing some of the stands out products of recent years.

The back-end innovation leader

It is often questioned why Tim Cook took over when Steve Jobs died. He is seemingly the archetypal back-end guy. He was credited with managing the Apple supply chain, manufacturing, and logistics, thus freeing up Jobs to focus on his front end pursuits. Tim Cook comes with more operational discipline.

• He focuses on getting products to market flawlessly in cost-effective ways, mastering all the complexity of putting in place the operational foundations necessary to go from concept to launch and roll-out.
• He has that insistence on achieving higher planning quality and expects the process discipline and standardization to make innovation replicable.
• He understands the demand for speed to market through a high level of cross-functional integration and a ‘first-time-right’ philosophy in implementation.
• Would have without doubt flexibility in execution decisions, based on detailed operational knowledge and pragmatic risk management.
• That ability to motivate staff for product battles and promotion of ‘launch and learn’ approach, leading to adapting quickly to improvements, re-launch cycles, and even recalls.

Balancing the respective innovation clout always needed.

If you have a front-end leader at the helm of your innovation activities then you need to find the balance of who manages the disciplined operational side, then if you have a back-end leader, who will defend an aggressive front-end agenda?

The appointing of any innovation leader has significant implications, sometimes huge. This ‘style’ can determine what generates innovation and can determine the passion, commitment, and the emphasis points that your organization’s innovation will possibly give preference to and provide resources.

So you have to ask “what is our innovation leadership” model?

Is there a balance within the leadership team, how can this be managed smoothly?

Having a better understanding of leadership traits, achieving a ‘given’ balance to offer a more complementary top team, alongside having in place a ‘greater’ innovation governance structure will help avoid many of the pitfalls and dysfunctional aspects, that can be encountered that software alone simply can’t resolve. People with their personal beliefs, passions, and understandings is what makes innovation work, the software is the ‘great’ enabler, and governance “pulls it” all together.

** This post was first published on the Hype Innovation Blog site

The post Do you recognize your innovators leaders position? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

The best way is to encourage everyone to have the ongoing experience, to get really involved and caught up in projects and initiatives that have the potential for impact. Learning from failures needs to be part of this.

Yet the very best thing is to encourage connected minds for value-creating opportunities and knowledge sharing for innovation to flow across an organization. For this, we need to think about some modern engagement platforms that have ’engagement and knowledge’ at their heart.

Let me offer some thoughts on this engagement need. It is (really) valuable to relate too.

Firstly and most importantly- Absorptive Capacity really does need greater understanding.

A fair time back two researchers, Cohen and Levinthal (1990) pioneered the concept of absorptive capacity, further defined as the ability of an organization to identify, value, assimilate, and apply new knowledge. Since its 1990 publication, the concept has been further developed and given rise to many thousands of published papers around this subject.

The value of absorptive capacity is that when organizations have some prior knowledge they are more receptive to adding new understandings and new ideas.

Organizations that encourage and set about learning consciously set about the search for new ideas and by having this already established ‘learning’, are far better at recognizing new ideas that might lead to innovation.

These organizations develop a deeper understanding of integrating and experimenting with this new knowledge and set about placing it in a new setting, concept or hypothesis, to push this knowledge forward into new innovation. They are consciously advancing learning.

This gaining of continuous knowledge encourages constant learning and this has a positive feedback cycle as it builds the capacities and capabilities for future innovation activity. Absorptive capacity once recognized and established as a system promotes the search for new knowledge that greatly increases the capacity to make the necessary new connections for new innovation to happen.

The ability of our knowledge gathering needs a continuous focus and methodology of approach.

For this to happen, it does need continuous focus. If organizations take the alternative route of wanting to squeeze every last drop out of the existing innovation activity or research department, organizations over time develop as bad learners, they begin to ignore, to assume they have the knowledge and get fixed in their mindsets. They fail to absorb, they tend to reject and increasingly adopt the “not invented here” syndrome. That can only last for a limited time before ‘innovation decay’ sets in, people leave and the knowledge often goes with them also.

We need a system to capture and allow knowledge to flow, and a strong absorptive capacity has three main outputs which result from the flow of external or distributed knowledge: (1) the creation of new innovation; (2) the creation of new knowledge; and (3) that it does lead to new economic and social value. This is why this becomes important to establish and apply.

Managing innovation is the ideal home. If we agree that most innovations happen outside often self-imposed boundaries then we have to extend to all our boundaries and beyond. We have to open up.

We certainly understand that today innovation is not confined to the walls of one particular company. The world ‘absorbs’ more innovation than we can turn into greater value but we need to attempt to capture this and see if and where its value might lie. 

This is going to be achieved more likely within a distributed approach, asking everyone to contribute to innovative ideas, and regularly providing them with the content and context that they need to look for.

Absorptive capacities provide us with the system on which we can encourage the gathering, understanding, and translation of knowledge. It underpins engagement.

Then we have to align technology with this ‘needing to be engaged’

We work in different modes, we have ad-hoc communications, the more process-work-driven collaboration needs and we need to seek out more content-centric collaborations to help us in our work and sense of engagement and worth.

There are plenty of tools out there that need to bring ‘in-house’ as standard service delivery platforms. These include Business Intelligence gathering tools, open access to portals, websites, and intranets to acquire, assimilate, and transform what we are discovering.  Then we need to establish organization-specific collaboration tools, enterprise social networks, encourage the constant feeding and building of content management resources, streamlining workflows, to help others to explore and build on these insights.

The key, though, is a uniformed communication strategy for all to appreciate, accept to work on and gain increased value from it.

Then we need to build this modern engagement platform.

What needs to be part of this engagement platform? It needs to have the capacity to ‘listen’ and capture understanding, it needs to deploy some filtering and analytics, it needs to have some inbuilt principles of workflow and BPM.

Then you need to capture the interactions, offer search and discovery services, organize event management, and be able to retrace the interaction history.

Then it has to have application connectors, domain-specific apps, and value the activity streams to provide rich user experience of different points within the engagement.

Finally, all of this needs to be integrated into the larger organizations’ processes and be able to be ‘syncing’ capabilities with the more traditional systems of your organization.

Achieving engagement

So this engagement platform interacts with the world to bring it into your four walls, it engages with other systems that help it in their capturing and dispersing abilities and it simply connects people. Lastly, it has to contain interesting work, knowledge, or activity.

There is a real need to think through the modern engagement platforms we require, both externally with our customers and other stakeholders, and also for our internal needs and this comes increasingly from technology solutions.

.There is increasing acknowledgment on the value of collective wisdom, growing flexibility in discovery and selection, relying on others that can add new knowledge and insights as well as recognizing the match and balance between intrinsic and extrinsic values for motivating and achieving real engagement for all those wanting to grow and prosper.

The post We need to shift from scalable efficiency to scalable learning. first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Constructing an innovation conversation framework is never easy, we all come at it in different ways and when it comes to those strategic conversations, we feel a sense of panic and growing tension as our messages begin to fray at the edges and slip more into tactical, the more we talk.

If you just diving into innovations, this sort of strategic conversation can change the goalposts, alter the perspective, and can give the innovation a more focused framing to build propositions around. It enables you to stand out as you are able to articulate the “bigger picture”

The framing of an innovation conversation framework

What I am suggesting here is an innovation conversation framework, on how we can approach different strategic value propositions, and where we might need to debate these across the organization, as the points of impact, so we can make a move towards a higher degree of innovation alignment for all involved.

If we take the three ‘classic’ strategic thrusts of product leadership, operational excellence, or customer intimacy, then we need to make clear the potentially different emphasis points within any suggested innovation approach that we should take. We must, within any innovation approach, be clear on what and where we should be placing our primary focus.

Aligning innovation within a strategic conversation framework

This framing can be most useful to remind people who are involved, that there are significant points of difference, or always need to be in anything new and innovative, otherwise, why are “we” doing it? There is a need to agree and align on what we are driving towards – and support any selected strategic direction. This framework can really open up the discussion. It can begin to show the possible implications and challenges ahead. It forms the required strategic dialogue.

Equally, some might argue that you actually need to combine all three, well I’d certainly want to question whether this is possible all at the same time. I would really doubt it if you just consider some of the aspects I’ve laid out within this framework above.

If it is still demanded, and some leaders can be just that, demanding – wanting to cover all the bases without knowing why they should be really focusing down on one of these. The direction you go requires the organizational focus to build the type of capabilities, resources, and processes to match this.

The need for a real alignment of strategy and innovation

Innovation stands in service to strategic goals such as growing market share, differentiation, and disrupting adjacent markets, serving the consistent changing and demanding customer needs, or by honing the delivery process by spotting these and then exploiting them rapidly and effectively. The first thing is you need to have a solid, thoughtful conversation around the type of strategic emphasis you wish to achieve.

Creating clear goals and linking/aligning innovation to those more agile strategies is a vital step before you get into the actual innovation concept stage. Senior executives must establish the manner in which innovation fits within the strategic context established on their goals, vision, and strategies.

Really do try and establish some key principles

I would suggest you really do need, even more, a framework to remind you of the critical differences and what aspects need clear focus to deliver to the distinct value proposition parts. Each strategic value proposition has significant implications to plan and work through.

This framework can help you to contribute to achieving greater alignment between the strategic direction (product leadership, operational excellence, or customer intimacy) and the key innovation aspects that help to align with this which the organization will need to think about and work through. Of course, those that go and build their own, based on their different needs of innovation create something unique and more valuable to “gather around”

The post Those that learn to frame the Strategic Innovation discussion are the big winners first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

The post Forget Best Practice, Think Always Of Learning Next Practice first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

I really have appreciate it. I wanted to draw out some useful learning from this report and useful reminders here in this post that there is no easy answers in innovation, social or business related.

The report outlines the difficulties of enabling innovation in social sector organizations. In this review the authors undertook exploring what enables organization capacity for continuous innovation in established social sector organizations, that operate at an efficient scale, delivering products and services.

Three oversights that conflict in working in the social innovation area

First, innovation is often perceived as a development shortcut where pushing innovation is often at the expense of strengthening more routine activities, which this ‘push’ might actually destroy rather than create value.

Second, social sector innovation has little external impact to show when it is enacted in unpredictable environments. Proven innovation can often fail when transferred to a different context and there is equally an undervaluing of the positive internal learning impact that comes from these ‘failed’ innovations.

Third, the power of negative organizational factors, such as bad leadership, dysfunctional teams and overambitious production goals as examples, makes the innovation task extremely difficult to succeed in difficult social conditions

This report helped me rethink the value of incremental in social innovation

I have been constantly complaining about incremental innovation needs to become more radical, more disruptive, more breakthroughs and what this report provides is a totally different slant on incremental innovation.

Also I have talked often about the knowing of the context of innovation and this report offers a brilliant reminder of this.

Over-rating the Value of Innovation.
The report offers this thought within social innovation: “Most of the value that established social sector organizations create comes from their core, routine activities perfected over time”.

It is the efficiency being produced in providing standard products and services is the place that creates tremendous value, particularly in places of widespread poverty.

The organizations involved have found a working model in a particular context requires predictable, incremental improvements and lots of them to generate superior outcomes over time.

The authors cite the Aravind Eye Care Hospital for their focus on continuous improvement of practices and investing any profits in building additional capacity. It is the dedication to standardization that drives operational productivity.

They spend their time eliminating variation to build constantly capacity to make an impact at an increasing scale.

The important point here is “constantly building capacity to make an impact at an increasing scale” and it is in finding the contextual linkages is where incremental has its greatest value potential.

Perhaps I push for different types of innovation within business far too hard and this observation might argue for a better viewpoint on the pursuit for incremental innovation. It brings my own pendulum into a better position perhaps of valuing incremental improvements?

A few ‘call out’ points here

• “Unpredictable innovation activities always compete with predictable core routines for scarce resources.”
• “Poverty-related or persistent problems may not need innovation solutions but rather committed long-term engagements that enable steady and less risky progress”.
• “Innovation is not triggered by change but progress and impact may come from dedication and routine work” and that this can challenge the argument for more innovation.

Recognizing the value of productive innovation.

The report uses as their innovation type “productive social innovation” and argues the need to rely heavily on trial and error and constant organizational learning to make this truly productive. To yield improving results where scale is critical.

The value of learning from failed innovation.
In the world of complex social issues innovation actions are inherently unpredictable, often placed in hostile environments, where you need to understand local power structures and the many root causes of the situation you are attempting to solve through innovation.

The call-out for me here is the emphasis for the systematic learning and building the knowledge base that provides the capacity to innovate or not. Also each situation needs significant evaluation before any adoption of practices from other places

The impatience with making fast progress
The report touches on “doing the right things” but it is within the unique dynamics and contextual factors that often innovation is prevented from happening. Innovation relies on a constellation of many enabling and contextual factors fueled by excessive optimism of the ones pushing for innovation solutions. There is so much that can stifle innovation or derail the process.

The recommendation is for greater critical diagnosis and evaluation of all the negative factors and hurdles that set about unearthing a large number of cognitive, normative and political factors.

You simply can’t reply on “simple recipes” as a prevailing dogma or well-meaning recommendations, it boils down to exploring the factors, complexities, challenges and realistic time-scales involved in dealing not just with the poor but all complex social challenges.

My call out here: I find this such a timely reminder for all innovation, as business leaders constantly express their frustrations with innovation failing to deliver.

The learning for me here is from the report is this increased emphasis on understanding all the negative factors that constantly block innovation and these are different from one situation to another. The environmental analysis becomes vital.

A summary within the report gave me these thoughts.

1. It is time to move from innovation as an ideology to innovation as a process—a transition that might be less glamorous but will be more productive
2. These recommendations should enable social sector organizations, their stakeholders, and researchers to develop analytical models and tools to unearth negative factors that prevent productive innovation.
3. Similarly, funders who carefully think through the implications outlined in the report may find ways to escape over-supporting fashionable innovation initiatives and under-supporting promising but difficult innovation efforts, particularly those in complex environments where formulas for social progress have not yet been found.
4. Finally, the process approach they are recommending to social innovation is an attempt to swing the pendulum back from the supply side of social innovation to the demand side of social innovation.

The authors finish with “Our hope is that an increased emphasis on innovation as a process will help avoid bad social sector investments and thwart unproductive debates about quick fixes to entrenched social problems.”

This report gives a useful reminder that there is a lot to keep constantly learning about the differences within innovation

This report gave me a shift in insight by explaining many of the enabling factors for organizations already established, that are searching to operate at scale within specific social contexts.

Incremental innovation is where they might create more social value through focusing on continuous ongoing improvements to extract learning, and reinvest this into scaling improvements to then build this into further capacity.

Also we can’t take anything for granted, the context, the environment, the application of different types of innovation all are unique and simply ‘applying’ general solutions just doesn’t work. I have argued this consistently but this report deals in understanding the specific conditions for a ‘given’ type of innovation as being essential to be really alert too.

Again, this report is “Innovation Is Not the Holy Grail” and well worth your time to read.

Seeing innovation from a specific social perspective has some very useful learning from a business perspective.

By understanding the value of incremental improvements can be more valuable in certain contextual situations than simply applying additional innovation creative investments without understanding all of the factors behind the challenges that are being tackled.

The post There are no easy innovation answers. first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

See http://tinyurl.com/chvu2la for this.

It is funny how this triggered a series of different thoughts which I’m going to try to explain here as I struggle with some disconnects on where we are going on engagement.

I first start out with engagement

There is an awful lot of disruption occurring all around us. Old behaviours, many well-established ones that we were somehow seemingly comfortable with, are being suddenly replaced.

We are being pushed far more today to search for achieving a greater personal meaning through a different set of connections, more remote, arguably more empowering and get offered in this deal the technology to make this happen, with ease and convenience in its place. What are we losing in this grand deal?

These shifts are changing our behaviours, they are seriously challenging many of our (past) accepted practices, because as we suddenly feel more in charge, to do the things we want to do, simply when we want to do them, we depend less on others.

We suddenly adopt new habits because they are better for us as individuals; they fit within our changing lifestyle. They “enable us to do”- they actually transform the way we work, think and interact.

Old habits don’t die hard anymore, they seem to be replaced fairly quickly once you see the change in the value, and technology simply keeps prodding us down this changing road faster and faster.

Clearly it is the technology that has given us this ability but understanding what is needed in scaling these engagements in sociable ways has not been as well thought-through, we are still experimenting and exploring the alternatives.

We are becoming far less sociable yet more social in how we communicate. We need to bring the art of face to face conversation back into our lives, not one-way monologues.

We don’t travel down to the bank branch anymore, we don’t go and browse for books in a library or book shop like we used to, and we stay rooted in front of our screen for more hours than ideal, be this on a mobile, tablet or screen to complete the tasks that seem to grow not decrease.

We reach out remotely when we need to, by simply asking a question or searching the database.

We stop making phone calls as these are often non-productive and we get really steamed up waiting in some queue only to find you are talking to someone in the Philippines or India waiting to go through countless security questions or simply not understanding the simplicity behind your question.

Often as they have not shared in “what makes up your experiences.” We are making less time for physical interactions.

Then we go to scalable

Scalable has been rather painted into a corner in recent years. It is the way we can scale a business is dangled out in front of us like a carrot, it is implied it is material to success, as with scalability comes profit, as the tantalizing reason to buy into those projects that scale. I wish it was that simple. Does scalability alone mean achieving success?

No, scalability allows for greater engagement that has growing (social) impact and for countless millions that is important. Scale in the more developed world, through greater technology reliance and increased complexity required to deliver this into our lives is carrying higher risks associated with this. We are less dependent on people around us, more dependent on technology and structures.

As we benefit from scale, there is this risk we are becoming more self-sufficient, more disconnected, opposite to what you might expect. We are missing the value of different avenues of possible productive engagement as we increasingly scale reliant only on technology.

We need more depth in connecting into others, to regain real association and identification, not more of the ‘superficial’ stuff we undertake today stilting conversations, cutting off deeper evaluation or contribution.

So I come to the question are we improving our lives?

Technology is certainly changing our behaviours. It is offering us greater “utility and convenience” but it is shifting us from being sociable (the face-to-face part) to just using ‘social’ as our media, as our source and outlet. It is not lightly that those that are embracing technology or simply growing up with it, who know nothing else, are being called the “digital natives”.

A native indicates where or what we were born into, being part of a ‘certain’ race or tribe but is the digital world such a good place to reside, to inhabit? Will it really provide richer engagements? Eventually, it can alter us all and how we interact.

We are at a sort of crossroads to what we mean by engagement.

If we stay ‘remote’ and increasingly hid behind our screens we lose the art of engagement as we have known it; in all our human existence – humans are or should be sociable animals.

If we withdraw from the physical communities increasingly into virtual ones, we are radically altering our behaviours and until our heads get completely rewired we are in for more inexplicable moments of sudden confrontation, we are witnessing more and more.

Hostile reactions increase, unreasonable behaviours surface but increasingly as the new norm, society begins to accept this as a price to pay,  should we?

We see this in small ways. For example you see this increasingly in sending over an email to the person sitting in the next cubical, or the student texting someone sitting yards away with a question instead of walking up to them and engaging.

I saw one recent comment: “It’s sad to know that we can’t have a decent conversation with each other anymore.” Or another one: “I went to text you just now and decided against it. Probably a better thing if we didn’t talk ever again unless we’re in a social situation where we need to. No big deal, really. I’m not going to make a big deal out of this”.

A social situation where we need to? Are these the new norm, if so, we are seriously changing our social behaviours.

This is simply because it is deemed as becoming inefficient, time-consuming, not necessary but is this really the case? We are cutting of huge chunks of experience, of interactions, of humour, fun, and serendipity. We are actually becoming increasingly anti-social.

Can technology and its entire array of amazing “apps” make up for this? I’m not laying blame at the technologies door but we are being pushed in a direction of a very different social engagement.

We need to concern ourselves on this and its longer-term consequences.

Living in increasingly complex times

Our lives are certainly more complex, we seem to have increasing “friction” points, and we can multitask better than the past generations or so we (mistakenly) believe.

The issue is technology is ‘fragmenting’ more and more before our eyes, the more it offers new solutions, the more we get deeper into complexity and use all of our ‘spare’ time in learning anew and managing this.

We are actually becoming more ‘ubiquitous’ in ourselves not just “living in the cloud,” where all our information is increasingly sitting, but we are seemingly needing to be everywhere at once. This is a different form of engagement and one we are all learning to understand and scale too.

We are constantly being challenged, to be engaged but in radically different ways than the past. Innovation is struggling to catch up with this in new helpful ways to keep us all sociable, not just social.

The issue for innovation is how to scale engagement?

As we engage in different ways, far more remotely, far more instantaneously for “all” to see, to prompt reaction, to gain instant feedback, we are shifting the way we engage with the world and others on an personal level.

We are working hard at personalizing the message, the experience, the connection but it often is leaving a very hollow place, a space that engagement of the face-to-face type can fill.

I believe we need to have a greater affinity, a great sense of kinship in our daily relationships otherwise our ‘interactions’ will be utterly dependent on technology and that alone is not sociable engagement. It still needs to be sociable, full of relationships that give that deeper, lasting meaning.

We need to learn to scale engagement that gives us “meaning not just products and apps”. We do need to buy more meaning that enriches.

Authentic, distributed, involved and scalable

Professor Katie Truss, at the Kent Business School, University of Kent has spent an awful lot of her time on engagement in her research. Check out some of what she has focused upon, it is important.

She has mostly focused on engagement within organizations bit I do feel much of what she has researched also applies to all our lives and how we need to treat engagement.

Engagement should be a feeling, a mindset and a way of behaving where there is a connection between the tasks we undertake, our role, our interactions but where we value the opinions of people and communities.

We do need to be insightful, to be better informed and raise our engagement not just in our activity in the new ways we are all working and engaging today. It is not just for the sake of it, to be seen and active, but it is to be more being affective in gaining both our personal satisfaction of jobs being done better (and faster) but having as well that feeling we are being valued far more.

We need to achieve far more positive emotional outcomes and deeper connections, we need to seek out being sociable.

As Professor Truss suggests it is in valuing performance, valuing opinions, valuing people and valuing (our) communities and we do need to scale these up in how we are engaging today.

Innovation needs to work on this part of the engagement process before we lose the art of socializing. Engaging insights allow us to share and build more.

amended

The post Thinking about scalable engagement first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.