Tag Archives: thought leadership

Iterate Instead of Analyze for Innovation Success

Intrapreneurship is needed in large companies.  Commonly, these companies tend to have plenty of data that has been collected to document market dynamics. Whether it is corporate strategy or corporate development, larger businesses have departments that constantly evaluate opportunities for growth–be they organic or inorganic.  Encouraging innovation and breakthroughs can be hard. The main reason big business becomes stagnant is that the mindset required for disruptive advances is very different than the risk management and mitigation approach of many market leaders.

Kevin McFarthing, who leads the Innovation Fixer consulting firm, suggests in a recent blog that “These companies also have a very rational approach to the assessment of investment opportunities. Of course, they find that the expenditure line has a much higher level of confidence than either the timeline or the scale of revenue. For that reason large companies want to increase the level of confidence in the income stream. Various techniques are used; for example, many consumer goods companies will undertake a fairly standard sequential program of qualitative and quantitative market research. This will relate to a database of similar products launched in the past. So, as long as you do the market research correctly, you can reduce your uncertainty and proceed.”

As is pointed out above, the traditional analytical tools used to evaluate comparable opportunities are somewhat like the comparables sought out when buying a new residence: intended to estimate what already exists instead of what has never been built. Relying on historical information rather than anticipating future demand is like driving down the road only looking in the rear view mirror!

On the opposite end of the spectrum, small businesses being run by visionary entrepreneurs tend to rely far less on the projection techniques of their larger counterparts. These start-ups rely on gut instinct, passion, and drive rather than systems. Instead of evaluating a market based on dozens of data points, the executive teams of thriving young businesses gather market information, develop a proof of concept, test it on a limited basis, revise the offering, and are nimble in their adjustments to feedback so that they can quickly bring something new to the marketplace. 

leap of faith

Large companies find what is done in the entrepreneurial space to be akin to a leap of faith. It’s very hard for a corporate type to operate from a place of judgment rather than logic. The willingness to produce something that is not perfect is much less in an organization with extensive quality initiatives.  The whole concept of try…try…try again that is the mantra of an entrepreneur is eschewed in favor of taking calculated risks. While it sounds stereotypical, it is not at all uncommon for the large company approach to be one that avoids undertaking projects without tons of documentation and extensive project and/or product planning down to minute details.  This predictable approach has severe shortcomings in an environment where responsiveness can make the difference between producing an offering that resonates versus one that is a “me too” alternative.

Instead of performing market and buyer research that resembles a canned, rote methodology, what is needed is flexibility, customization, and the ability to constantly iterate. Instead of sequence and a step-wise stage gate process, truly innovative organizations are far more willing to engage in trial and error.

McFarthing says that many large organizations lack the right mindset to explore potential. Changes he advocates that they make to become more innovative include: 

–   Rely much more on judgment to move projects ahead rapidly;

–   Don’t apply the same criteria to incremental and radical innovation;

–   Use a fast and iterative sequence of prototyping and market testing to learn and reduce uncertainty;

–   Go to market as soon as you can, don’t wait for all the facts.

Follow these suggestions and you will change your culture to become more intrapreneurial!

 

 

 

Put Sharks & Jets to Work in Strategic Design Thinking

When we think of design, we think of products. Industrial design as a field is scarcely 10o years old. However, technology tools such as CAD (Computer Aided Design), 3-D modeling, and stereolithography catapulted design into a rapid prototyping process towards the end of the 20th century. Companies like Apple rode the crest of this wave–to an extent–but really took design to a new frontier. Rather than simply looking at features and benefits as expressions of design and product marketing, what emerged was a new way to view business problems. Many business schools have incorporated not only courses on innovation, but specific foci on “design thinking.”

Kevin Budelmann penned an article for Metropolis magazine last month discussing design thinking as a modern motif. Budelmann credits Bill Moggridge, cofounder of the pioneering design firm IDEO with contributing significantly to thought leadership in this domain. Moggridge is said to have been the genius who reengineered IDEO from a product design practice to strategic design thinking powerhouse. Budelmann notes that part of the transformation occurred as a result of asking staff from divergent disciplines to work together, requiring that they become humble in the process. 

Budelmann’s firm, Peopledesign, has amassed a team of talented contributors who may not have worked for design firms years ago. A clear distinction is made, however, in hiring MBAs who understand design and designers who understand business.  The inevitable difference of opinions pits “sharks” (MBAs) against “jets” (designers) in true West Side Story musical terminology. Here’s Budelmann’s take on the natural interaction between the two employee types in his design firm:

It’s not even clear anymore which neighborhoods are Sharks’ turf and which belong to the Jets. Maybe that isn’t such a bad thing. The gym is neutral territory, and we might be able to work something out at the dance. Clearly, we Jets could learn a few new moves from the Sharks. The Sharks need to cool their jets anyway, so to speak.

When it’s show time, it isn’t us against them. In truth, we’ve made great strides. We’re learning every day. A colleague once mentioned that when people talk about collaboration, they usually mean cooperation. True collaboration is hard. Real communication is hard. It’s not about holding ground; it’s about ceding turf.

Two decades ago I was in school at Carnegie Mellon, where everyone is a geek in their respective discipline.The least geeky and (excuse the perception) least interesting people got a business degree. General management, which we assumed was to generally manage something general. It left us scratching our heads.

Now that I own my own business, I value management greatly. Business is an engine, and we don’t go very far without it. Besides, what do designers really do anyway? How do they do it? Is it describable to a non-designer, or do you have to be part of the gang?

Today we operate in a post Sharks vs. Jets world. Our team looks different. Our projects look different. Our sketches, books, and processes look different. As for the star-crossed lovers, our children have certainly taken the best of both of us. It’s the same for our ensemble at work. This is clear: Our hybrid future is stronger than our disconnected past.

Designers focus on asking questions, but often don’t like to answer them. Business people focus on answers, but often don’t ask the right questions. The combination can be powerful. The future of business and design lies in our ability to overcome our small worlds to make room for a bigger one.

The phenomenal power of strategic design thinking is unveiled in that final paradox–designers must become better at answering questions and business folks must become better at asking the right questions. Seek to apply this principle to your own business. Challenge your concrete thinkers to think more divergently; your creatives to think more convergently. In doing so, you will experience some transformation and create a new language of productivity.

 

Smarter Family Business Via Communication

Having grown up in a family owned business, I have experienced a thing or two in common with many of my clients. Even when I was yet in middle school, I would be recruited to help out in the business, much to my own dismay at times when I would much rather be doing something (anything?) else. However, a little bit of pay went a long ways to making a young man very content. As I grew older, however, the conflict between what needed to be done in the business and what I wanted to do became greater. My goals, dreams, and ambitions had less and less to do with staying in town, working alongside my dad, and us building something together. As you can imagine, this difference of opinion caused a bit of a rift in our relationship. So it goes with many family businesses.

The mismatch between the expectations that a founder has in terms of the involvement of children in the business and their actual desire to be involved is one of the leading problems encountered in family businesses. The parent (substitute other type of founder, but effect is similar) wonders why the child doesn’t put forth the same effort, see the same vision, realize the potential, etc. I delivered a talk for Harley Davidson University on this subject a few years ago, “Why They Don’t Ride With You.” In my session, I spoke with dealers about their frustrations with family members who seemed disinterested in working in or taking over the business. My encouragement to them was to do three things:

  1. Hold the opportunity with an open hand. Instead of making up your mind that there is only one “right” scenario for family members to take part in your business, be flexible! Determine that, while you may have preferences, you will corral your opinions and keep them in check as you attempt to find a common ground.
  2. Communicate often, specifically, including listening. Far too often, a patriarch will squelch the input of a child, spouse, etc in the home–and at work–particularly if work and home blend as in the case of a family business. Rather than honing in on what the other person has to say, we can easily insist on getting our point across before seeking to understand the other person’s view. Ask open ended questions about what the family member enjoys doing, what role they see themselves in, and how those choices affect the business. Create an open dialogue-constantly.
  3. Distinguish between ownership and management. An heir may work in the business or out of it, but still function as an owner. Sometimes, it is best for all if it’s known to be a safe choice to be just an owner or just a manager, rather than both as the founder has been. Realizing that such options exist can diffuse tension, lead to productive conversations, and aid in succession planning. Quite often, outsiders are better successors to founders because they can be objective about the contribution family members make to the business.

There are many other issues that, seen operating in a family business, look and feel different than their counterparts in other types of businesses. Everything from performance measurement to compensation, perks to preferences, psychology to sociology, and very much in between can be seen at work and become a spark for emotions. By far, family businesses are more emotional than others. Whatever your situation, think about tools that help create objective conversations about business issues so that you can lessen the impact of emotions in decisions that are being made. Your business and your family will be better off for it!

 

Innovating Words Make Healthy Corporate Hearts

 

Cheryl Heller, Board Chair of PopTech, a laboratory for disruptive innovation focused on technology and social change, says that,

The wealth of jargon used to describe intrapreneurship (itself a bit of jargon), innovation and corporate social responsibility is more exhausting than enriching, and as their importance becomes more evident, the labels and complexities grow. What’s the difference between corporate social responsibility, cause branding, cause marketing, and a triple (or sometimes lately double, as if we can just decide to leave the environment out of it) bottom line? Should companies now stop all their work on sustainability in order to focus on resilience? Has all independent thinking, or even perhaps all generative thinking inside big organizations become intrapreneurship?  What’s the difference between social innovation and innovation? What’s the relationship between design thinking and innovation? What’s the difference between disruptive innovation and incremental innovation? Is some innovation more innovative than others and is more innovation always better? And does anybody else see this as a silly and dangerously circuitous trap of our own devising?

The significance of the debate about the proper terminology is to find a means to communicate disruptive breakthrough ideas as a valuable corporate asset–without simultaneously creating anarchy! Words cited in Heller’s comment (above) evoke values and desired activities that can help an organization create–or sustain competitive advantage.  Yet, if innovation is perceived as an altogether separate category than “ordinary business,”  then it can be argued that no one will want to do what is methodical if they can be celebrated and rewarded for dreaming over practical execution of existing initiatives. Most organizations and their leaders would prefer that employees see the process of introducing initiatives as a normal part of their positions, rather than stand alone activities that become the topic du jour and are jettisoned when times get tough in favor of “that’s the way we’ve always done it here. (TTWWADIH)” 

TTWWADIH can be a pervasive attitude that implies that we can add to what exists, but should not be expected to improve what exists. In this scenario, positions and/or departments are launched rather than tackling sticky, often political issues. Star studded teams are put together many times to represent cutting edge thinking, only to exempt the teams from performance, which ultimately leads to demotivated executive management.

Yesterday, we looked at Scott Anthony’s HBR article about Medtronic, a company well known for innovation, and their efforts to become even more adept at broad scale innovation. The Healthy Heart For All product has been launched towards the rural Indian population target market. Medtronic is large, smart, connected, positioned and incentivized enough to out-hustle upstart competitors. Though they brought in a key intrapreneur, the company was effective in changing the corporate cultural stance on what it takes to be competitive.

No one wants an unmotivated workforce. Nor do we want idealists who are not well grounded. The concept to “innovate properly” is a core value of a former employer of mine who understood that creativity and innate personal responsibility for the benefit of others must work in concert. By including this core value in position descriptions, the leadership team recognized the need to challenge employees to see advanced initiatives as the responsibility of every employee–not an isolated activity. Furthermore, when innovation becomes the expectation, we don’t have to “stop the presses” to encourage innovative thinking and actions.

Find a way to articulate your expectations for intrapreneurship (or innovation if you prefer) (or corporate social responsibility if you are a part of a grandiose cause) inside your environment. Ask people to define what they mean when using these terms. Expect all employees to take initiative!

 

 

 

Intrepid Intrapreneurship, 2012 Style

Have you heard about the League of Intrapreneurs competition going on right now? Ashoka and Accenture are serious about helping companies “build better business from the inside out.”  Early applications were due by October 24; final nominations and entries by January 15, 2013. The top 15 entrants from the competition will form the inaugural class of the League of Intrapreneurs, becoming part of an elite global network of changemakers. These entrants will also receive media and press recognition and will be featured in the publication of a globally distributed intrapreneur toolkit. Of this league, the top four winners will be profiled on Fast Company’s blog, Co.EXIST, and will receive consulting support from Accenture Development Partnerships to further their work.

What is Intrapreneurship? The Wikipedia definition that is quoted on the home page of the Intrapreneurship Conference being held in Paris next month says it is “the act of behaving like an entrepreneur in a bigger organization.”  Their promotional pitch continues: 

Intrapreneurship is a rising concept that tries to gather the natural objective of any organisation in the 21st century to be more innovative with the often non-tapped energy dug into any would-be entrepreneurs. Intrapreneurship create(s) a framework where the latter is granted some freedom to try out a project of his/her own, the benefit being shared with the employer in the case of a successful experimentation.

The… conference, on December 13th, aims to cover this growing trend in corporations’ life, which addresses both the need of companies to produce more innovations and the will of talented people to find achievement opportunities. Experts and representatives of some of the most innovatives companies will share their view on why intrapreneurship is positively impacting their organisation and how they implement it. The conference is designed for human resources managers, chief strategy and chief operating officers, as well as everyone who is interested in the new growing management trends for change.

Ernst & Young has noticed the power of the intrapreneurship trend and, based on recent survey results, offers six guidelines for creating a culture ripe for innovation within larger organizations:

  1. Set up a formal structure for intrapreneurship. Give people enough time away from their “day jobs” to work on creative projects, but provide a formal process for new product development.
  2. Ask for ideas from your employees. They have their fingers on the pulse of the marketplace. Encourage them to contribute to the innovation dialogue.
  3. Assemble and unleash a diverse workforce. It’s no secret that diverse groups come up with more innovative ideas. Tap into this multifaceted source of power.
  4. Design a career path for your intrapreneurs. For the most part, intrapreneurs are mavericks who will quit — and take their best ideas with them — if they don’t see prospects for career advancement.
  5. Explore government incentives for innovation. Ask how these can support your intrapreneurial ventures. Governments all over the world are offering new tax breaks and other incentives for research and development (R&D) — and corporations in turn are urging governments to support innovation.
  6. Prepare for the pitfalls of intrapreneurship. Not all ideas will produce successful new products. Failure is an important part of the process.

Scott Anthony, of Innosight, writing for an HBR blog post earlier this Fall, cited a story of how Medtronic fostered intrapreneurship through a culture of innovation in introducing the Healthy Heart to hospitals. He felt Medtronic had a competitive advantage: 

Medtronic had an internal “corporate catalyst” — someone who marshaled resources both inside and outside the company and built organizational support for the disruptive growth strategy. Medtronic mixed the entrepreneurial approach of a VC-backed start-up with the unique capabilities once housed in corporate labs. Its story illustrates how big companies are powerfully and uniquely suited to tackling large-scale social problems such as hunger, health care, sustainability, and education. These aren’t stand-alone corporate social responsibility efforts — they are strategic initiatives to create profitable businesses that improve the world.

In many ways, Medtronic was applying the E&Y recommended best practices without even having read them. What is your company doing to foster a culture of innovation? Tomorrow, we will tackle the language of intrapreneurship!