Monthly Archives: March 2010
In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell stated that it takes 10 years to become an expert in any given subject.Many people actually reach this level. You might not be a professor or best-selling author, but you have probably worked long enough to become an expert in your given field – or you are on your way.Yet, people having enough knowledge to qualify as a thought leader or expert do not get the recognition or credit they deserve – and often long for.This is an interesting paradox. You work hard and at some point expect/hope to be perceived as an expert or thought leader, but it does not happen.Why? The clutter of information and knowledge that surrounds us makes it so much more difficult to break through even if we have great, original ideas and an impressive knowledge base.It is no longer enough just to qualify by knowledge to become an expert; you … Continue reading
On the Harvard Business Review blog, John Hagel III, John Seely Brown and Lang Davison, recently wrote a thought-provoking piece on the future of open innovation. They make many keen observations about the limitation companies currently face in making effective use of “Transactional Open Innovation” (TOI), defined below. However, they wrongly conclude that this is an inherent limitation of the TOI tools themselves, instead of a limit related to the way that enterprises presently organize R&D practices and processes.Where Hagel et al., are most astute is with respect to identifying the drivers of open innovation, e.g rapid depreciation of “information stocks” and an Internet ecology rapidly evolving to facilitate the flow of information. These are the reasons that forward-looking companies like General Mills and P&G launched their often-cited open innovation experiments. Other companies, the authors of the HBR piece suggest, are following suite, at least in part, as a result … Continue reading
General Motors and Segway have teamed up to do a new product launch. The new product is described at Freep.com in “GM, Partner to unveil 2-seater” and is called the EN-V. And there’s almost no hope it will succeed. Too bad, because both companies desperately need a winner. But the process they used to develop and launch this product was all wrong – and it would be a miracle if the arrow hits a bulls-eye.Segway is the long-running story of a company with what looks like a great idea, but it never takes off. The original Segway seemed really neat. But people struggled to figure out why they would buy one. There is walking, there are bicycles, there are motorcycles and there are cars. Segway never defined who was under-served, or unserved, and therefore had a real need to use their new product. Segway management did a great job of … Continue reading
To Encourage and Facilitate Interdisciplinary Conflict, Collaboration and ExperimentationThis is the third of several ‘Innovation Perspectives’ articles we will publish this week from multiple authors to get different perspectives on ‘How should firms develop the organizational structure, culture, and incentives (e.g., for teams) to encourage successful innovation?’. Here is the next perspective in the series:by Cynthia DuValIf you want to encourage successful innovation take a lesson from Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. Of all of the companies I’ve worked for or with, PARC, under the direction of John Seely Brown, was the best at inventing answers to this question. And maybe that is the answer: If you aren’t successfully innovating now, change your current structures, cultures and incentives to encourage interdisciplinary conflict and collaboration and I might add, get out of the way of self-motivated creativity. Successful innovations sometime flow from the historical trajectory of technical and …
Most business leaders plan modest incremental growth each year. They set expectations that they are confident can be achieved. This way everyone can get a pat on the back when the plan is reached. Growth in revenue in line with the market at 5% and growth in profits of 6% is the sort of thing. Many directors would be delighted with this sort of result. The trouble with this approach is that it reinforces incrementalism. The easiest way to get 5% growth is by pumping up the existing products or services. We can add some line extensions. The easiest way to wring out some extra profit is to improve the efficiency of the current model or to squeeze down on our suppliers. There is no incentive here to look for big opportunities, to find entirely new sources of revenue, to conceive new business models.The second problem is that companies, just … Continue reading
In a recent Fast Company article and video on Open Forum, Dan & Chip Heath, co-authors of “Made to Stick”, look at how to explain what your innovation is and what it does. If ideas aren’t accepted they can die quickly, and there’s a lot riding on getting it right. From a Theory of Constraints or critical chain perspective, once your new product is launched, your constraint often becomes market acceptance. In some cases that means getting people to understand what your innovation is and how it can help them.There are lots of things that can constrain how readily the market accepts your new product or innovation, but the Heaths cover a very important one: helping potential buyers quickly understand what the product is and what it does. Anchor and Twist are the two suggestions they offer. Anchor your product to something they already know. Twist to show how it’s … Continue reading
