Advertisement
*
Reproduction permitted for personal use only. For reprints and reprint permission, contact reprints@wistechnology.com.

A missing link in innovation

Business leaders see constant innovation as the only way to prevail against increasing global competition. Innovation has become one of the most popular business buzzwords. Books on innovation frequently become best sellers. Magazine editors like to create lists and give awards to the most innovative products and companies. Trend spotters say that "Innovation Coach" is one the latest emerging job titles.

So what is the missing link? How do you foster innovation? Why do some innovation and technology efforts succeed and why do some fail?

Apple Computer was not the first company to sell a digital music player, or music online, but the iPod is considered one of the most innovative and best selling products in the market today.

At the 2006 World Economic Forum "Innovation" replaced "Outsourcing" as the hot topic of discussion, with 22 sessions falling under the heading "Innovation, Creativity and Design Strategy."

Helen Johnson-Leipold, chairman and CEO of Johnson Outdoor and Johnson Financial Group speaking at a recent conference on innovation said, "The economy can not be an excuse for why business is bad and why it is good. We need to keep growing and innovation is how we grow."

Despite all the attention, 96% of innovation initiatives fail. Even a small increase in success rate can be a major advantage for a business.

S.C. Johnson and their family of companies have embraced and fostered a culture of innovation since the depression, when Sam Johnson introduced "Glow Coat." In spite of the economic downturn, consumers bought the product, and the company flourished and did not lay-off any employees during this tumultuous period for American businesses.

"Innovation and people are core family values to Johnson family," said Johnson-Leipold. "It is all about people, they are our greatest asset and greatest source of innovation. We launch products that are better than what is out there. All four Johnson groups embrace that philosophy."

Life science and information technology companies are producing some breakthrough ideas. Yet, some companies are more successful than others at commercializing their products and raising capital. Why is this occurring?

Confusing invention versus innovation

One of the pitfalls that many people fall into is to confuse invention and innovation. They are different. Innovation is process and not a product. Some managers think that innovation means a clever, novel form of invention. They will stress skills like problem solving, out of the box thinking, and conceptual blockbusting. All of these skills can produce ideas. But ideas are not enough, as adoption is the real test of innovation.

What is missing? According to Peter Denning, Director of the Cebrowski Institute for information innovation and superiority at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, it is the individual's skill at innovating.

Speaking to delegates at the World Technology Network Summit in November 2005, he said, "Most of the attention has been on business policies and processes that encourage innovation. That's only half of the picture. The other half is the people of the organization, the human capital. If they don't have the right skill set, organization policies will have marginal effect." To make serious progress, Denning says, we have to understand what those skills are and cultivate them in our people.

This paradox between invention and innovation causes a great deal of frustration and often involves a great deal of time and expense.

Researchers often turn out many new ideas only to find out that that they are not commercially viable or accepted. "Good ideas don't automatically win. Someone has to help them win," says Denning.

How do you foster innovation?

Anyone can learn to be an innovator - "If they ask the right questions and learn the right practices," added Denning. He has identified a seven-part framework called the "Personal Foundational Practices," which can be taught to individuals and endorsed by organizations wishing to stimulate a culture of innovation.

Denning says that the seven foundation practices can be seen in the actions of all successful innovators, regardless of their personality, style, humor, charisma, extroversion, introversion, optimism and pessimism.

The first two practices are "sensing possibilities" and "envisioning new realities." These are the essence of invention. Someone sees a new possibility to take care of concerns and tells a compelling, vivid story about how the world would work if the possibility were made real.

The third practice, "Offering," is the flex point between invention and innovation. It is where the innovator offers to a community the possibility and a way to achieve it, and establishes his or her own credibility as a leader.

The majority of the work is in the next three practices, "executing," "adopting," and "sustaining." The innovator establishes plans, builds teams, and delivers products. The innovator works with the community on adoption of the new way of doing things, and creates infrastructure to sustain the new way after adoption.

Leadership is the seventh practice. Leaders proactively make the other steps work. In fact, leaders are measured by their ability to produce innovations.

These conversations are not necessarily sequential, and often move forward and backward as learning and adoption take place. Innovators learn from mistakes and adapting to feedback from their communities. Denning, who has taught these principles for over fifteen years, suggests your organization can significantly improve its chances of success by having these conversations that facilitate group interaction and adoption of new ideas.

The Johnson family of companies provides a good model for companies seeking to launch innovative products. According to Johnson-Leipold, "Our Company has a commitment that starts at the top. Every top manager is responsible for driving innovation. It is a core of every meeting, business plan and operation strategy. Innovation is a part of every managers incentive program."

Mike Klein is president of WTN Media and editorial director for the Wisconsin Technology Network and can be reached at mike@wistechnology.com.

Comments

Dr. Phil Greenwood responded 2 years ago: #1

Mike Klein has it right!

Many times we do confuse creation and invention with innovation. In many of our classes at the Weinert Center of Entrepreneurship we stress that the inventing part is the 'easy' part of developing a product or service. The commercialization of it - developing strategies, analyzing the market, developing cost estimates, and a 'go-to market' timeline, finding financing, etc. - establish major hurdles during the innovation process.

If we really want to develop an 'innovative' economic engine, the most effective plan is the old 'shot gun' approach, or in other words, dramatically increase the number of inventions in Wisconsin. The sheer increase in potential products and services will increase the number that make it through the innovation stage to the market. We also must not be afraid to fail!


Regards

Dr. Phil Greenwood
Senior Lecturer, Strategy and Entrepreneurship
Weinert Center of Entrepreneurship
University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Business

Dr.Wes Perusek responded 2 years ago: #2

We Wonder if Mr.Denning is knowledgeable about TRIZ, Russ Ackoff, Ed. Deming, Edw.DeBono, J.J. Christopher,C.J. Maker,Victor Papanek,Peter Senge,Robt. Weber and David Perkins,James Adams,and others who write from knowledge and experience on these matters of invention, innovation, design thinking and entrepreneurship. When a writer focuses on one one "expert" the sense is that everyone should "know" his
strategy to be successful. Helpful, but not helpful because it restricts rather than expand knowledge. Credit to creative capacity development leading to better thinking and the principles, strategies and methods plus the environments identified to support and encourage creativity and inventiveness are key here. This is why the focus on one idea alone is simply good but not nearly enough. The need is great and the impediments to innovation are huge especially whey writers focus only on the adult, business end and not on youth development and education where these capacities are best developed--early on in life.

"School" however, is still a 6 hour a day, 5 day per week, 9 months per year enterprise. This leaves huge amounts of "descretionary time" as identified by the Carnegie Council On Adolescent Development and others and offers grand opportunity to advance "creativity", "innovation" " inventiveness" in the after-school period of almost all young people.
This rationale forms the basis for the Ohio Space Grant Consortium(NASA) effort to establish a network of after-school Invention Innovation Centers in communities and to expand this idea nationally. Waiting until college and beyond to discuss and to debate and strive for "innovative thinking", "inventive, design thinking" is waiting much too late.

Thus the ITEA Technology Standards K-12, the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Project 2061; the National Academy of Engineering's Technically Speaking-Why All Americans Need To Know More About Technology and its upcoming June,2006 release of recommendations to the States on Assessing Technological Literacy.

Writing addressing all the elements known is much better in helping advance knowledge and practice and in informing the public as well as in engaging the public in the enterprise of advancing technology and technological literacy.

A further need is to clarify and distinguish between technology and science and to do so in an historical sense when we find that technology is older than science. Meaning is further confused when writers talk about " educational or instructional technology" i.e., computers in education and soon drop the "educational or instructional" and talk only of technology when in fact, they are dealing only with a part of technology, not the whole of it: "information processing technology". Clarity in writing and publishing is so sorely needed here. Words have meanings. Wrong words, wrong meaning conveyed.

And as the wise professor noted: " We are not any smarter than the sources of our information."

Dr.Wes Perusek, Director
OSGC(NASA) Invention Innovation
Centers Project
Advisor, Altshuller Institute for TRIZ Studies
Distinguished Alumni, School of
Technology, Kent State University
Former Associate State Director
NJDE Technology for Children Program
Initiator, NJ MIIT Program, statewide
6165 Creekside Lane
North Ridgeville, Ohio 44039
440-353-2750
perusek@alltel.net

Paul Szews responded 2 years ago: #3

Mr. Klein is right that "constant innovation is the only way to prevail against global competition." Every business must innovate to the extent that its customers have alternatives to its offerings. Most people prefer and can better handle incremental, continuous improvement -- in all aspects of their lives.

Companies that carefully respond to those desires for improvement will win. If they don’t respond, their competitors will win. But this race isn’t totally about speed. It’s about conditioning and approach.

As we learned in Aesop's "The Tortoise and the Hare": 'Slowly but surely wins the race."

Failure: Cheaper is Better ...
Let me throw this one out:  "Good innovation is an enterprise-wide discipline that will actually lead to more failed initiatives, not fewer."

What!? Here's the rub: When a company is steeped in the process of innovation, ideas will "fail" much earlier in the incremental investment pipeline, so they will fail much less expensively.

Earlier, cheaper failures will provide constructive, educational experiences and result in higher-quality output from the "innovation pipeline." That’s why “breakthrough ideas” are a result of good innovation process.

Innovation is Not Speculation ...
I'd like to offer that innovation is not speculative. Nor does innovation equate with strategic planning. In my experience, innovation comes between strategy and execution, and when it works (usually as a facilitated process), it helps to focus your execution and boost the performance of your investments.

In Search of the Innovation Culture ...
Instilling a culture of innovation remains challenging for many Wisconsin companies. But it’s not for lack of skills. Most people are fully capable of coming up with new ideas for improving existing things. The missing link is TIME. If asked, most reasonable people will tell you, "I don't have time for innovation -- I'm busy doing my job.” And they're right; ever see “innovation responsibilities” in a job description? I never have.

Let’s continue this discussion of real innovation in Wisconsin. Let’s all work to instill a culture of continuous innovation in Wisconsin companies. Because in the end, it's that continuity that wins the race (just ask the Tortoise!).
Paul Szews
Partner
Marquette Technology Group, LLC
Milwaukee

Dr.Wes Perusek responded 1 year ago: #4

Mark Twain said it well: "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is really a large matter-- it is the difference between a lightening bug and lightening."

And: "A powerful agent is the right word. Whenever we come upon one of those intensely right words in a book or a newspaper the resulting effect is physical as well as spiritual, and electrically prompt."

-Add Your Comment

Name:
E-mail:

Comment Policy: WTN News accepts comments that are on-topic and do not contain advertisements, profanity or personal attacks. Comments represent the views of the individuals who post them and do not necessarily represent the views of WTN Media or our partners, advertisers, or sources.

WTN Media cannot accept liability for the content of comments posted here or verify their accuracy. If you believe this comment section is being abused, contact edit@wistechnology.com.

Advertisement
Advertisement

-More Stories

WTN Media Presents