A642.6.3.RB_BorutyAlan_Practicing Creative Thinking Skills

Practicing Creative Thinking Skills

Each of the readings this week provided good examples of strategies that would help me lead innovation projects.  Mckeown (2014) gave me his innovator’s toolkit with eight models and tools that cover most if not all of the innovation life-cycle.  Canfield & Smith (2011) devoted a chapter to Dr. Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats.  But I was most impressed by the Harvard Business Review article, “Special Forces” Innovation: How DARPA Attacks Pproblems.  Dugan & Kaigham (2013) led DARPA from 2009 to 2012.  In the article, they dissected the organization to uncover important interdependent pieces that enable the DARPA model.  Armed with the information they collected, they rebuilt the model in their new organization, Motorola Mobility, and established the Advanced Technology and Projects (ATAP) group.  They discussed each element they installed, why they installed it, and how it contributes to breakthrough innovation for the organization. I found it quite interesting.  It is as much about creating an environment conducive to innovation as I have read to date.

Unfortunately, I must admit that, until I read the article, I had never heard of DARPA and had no idea anything like it existed.  To me, it sounded like an organization you might learn about while watching Get Smart reruns on television.  But, these are the good guys and they actually exist.

Over the past 50 years, the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has produced an unparalleled number of breakthroughs. Arguably, it has the longest-standing, most consistent track record of radical invention in history. Its innovations include the internet; RISC computing; global positioning satellites; stealth technology; unmanned aerial vehicles, or "drones"; and micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), which are now used in everything from air bags to ink-jet printers to video games like the Wii (Dugan & Kaigham, 2013, p. 76).

Identify five strategies that can help you lead innovation projects

I selected the following five strategies from the readings this week to help me lead innovation:

1. Employ Dugan and Kaigham’s ATAP ‘Special Forces’ model for innovation.
2. Utilize Burgelman and Seigel’s Minimum Winning Game.
3. Use Osborn and Parnes’ Creative Problem-Solving (CPS)
4. Incorporate Amabile’s Internal and External Motivation
5. Learn Dr. Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats, apply it regularly in the work center.

I believe each of these strategies will serve to keep creativity and innovation fresh during non-innovation periods and make the organization an innovation machine when it counts most.

Include in your discussion the reason these five elements are important and how you would apply them from your current position.

Innovation is a complex process.  To lead a complex process, the leader must create an environment in which the process can thrive.  Nick Obolensky (2014) describes this environment as having eight elements in place and understood by all.  The elements are: implicit purpose, explicit objectives, freedom to act, clear boundaries, people’s skill/will, few simple rules, ambiguity/chaos, unambiguous feedback.  The model that Dugan and Kaigham (2013) extracted from DARPA goes a long way towards establishing that environment.  This environment will operate in concert with and follow the rules of the culture that is still taking hold. 

Employing Dugan and Kaigham’s ATAP ‘Special Forces’ model for innovation will do a couple of important things for the organization.  First, it will allow me to tie the eight elements needed for complex process operations in with innovation.  It will be my job to share the underlying meaningful purpose, provide objectives, set boundaries and write a few simple rules.  On a regular basis I will verify the that the elements are still in place.  Second, people will actually begin seeing the changes in action.  They will be working together in a different way as the DARPA-like model is implemented.  The people are getting to know each other.  More importantly, the people are learning to trust each other.  Many things will be different and more will be expected of the front-line members.  The DARPA model has three elements and they will carry over to my organization.  The elements are ambitious goals, temporary project teams, and independence.  Ambitious goals define the projects the organization takes one.  DARPA’s “projects are designed to harness science and engineering advances to solve real-world problems or create new opportunities….The problems must be sufficiently challenging that they cannot be solved without pushing or catalyzing the science” (Dugan & Kaigham, 2013, p. 76).  Dugan and Kaigham recommend dedicating a small team to use inspired basic research, which I will do.  I will also use temporary project teams in order to keep collaboration high and a strong sense of urgency (Dugan & Kaigham, 2013).  I will allow the team the autonomy to select the projects they pursue.  My organization is not a full-time innovation facility.  But we will have people working innovation full time and I will shuffle the right people in and out as necessary to keep momentum going.  I believe the new model and environment will soon begin to change people’s thinking towards a more innovative mindset.  Other four strategies I chose are meant to feed the mindset and make innovative thinking the norm within the organization. 

Employing Burgelman and Seigel’s Minimum Winning Game (MWG) will teach the group how to keep balance between business strategy, product development, and technology development in innovation.  It will also serve to reinforce strategy development from the beginning of the project.  It is fact that uncertainty and risk are part of innovation.  This should keep innovators on their toes and asking smart questions.  It is not time to make reckless assumptions that could lead to products or services being developed that are not needed, wanted, or profitable (Mckeowm, 2014).  As with other strategies, I will routinely bring teams together to practice, discuss, and evaluate applying the concept to ideas.

Answering questions like who will be using the innovation, what will have to happen with the product or service before the product will be useful or popular, and will technology have to be developed to support the product, will keep the team’s efforts focused on what needs to be done without spending too much on one area and neglecting another.  The idea is for the team to understand what the minimum acceptable result has to be.  Once that is known, the team can determine other minimums.  Mckeown (2014) explained that “everyone benefits from finding out the lowest threshold for performance, design, or anything else that will shape the future success or failure of the innovation” (p. 154).  MWGs will be accomplished on each of the strategy drivers.  Continuously knowing what has to be done (at minimum) every six months for all of the MWGs allows the team to orchestrate their work and bring everything together in the best possible way.  Mckeown (2014) believes this is how success is shaped. 

Osborn and Parnes’ Creative Problem-Solving (CPS) process also benefits the organization in more than one way.  Members get to practice using each stage of the three-stage process: 1) explore the challenge, 2) generate ideas, and 3) prepare for action.  The stages are well titled and, for the most part, self-explanatory.  However, it would be a mistake to underestimate this simple process.  Likewise, it would also be a mistake to add complication to the process.  This is a creative thinking process.  It is a framework that focuses creative thinking on a specific problem.  We want ideas to be generated from the passionate, playful, dissatisfied, and creative minds of the participants.  Then we want those ideas to interact with the same type of thinking from the other participants.  The more the better.  The leader may have to initiate this stage with a suggestion or questions, but then should step back and let the activity develop on its own according to the participants.  Adding rules, complicated steps, or conforming behaviors can restrict creativity (Mckeown, 2014).  The benefits I spoke of earlier are significant.  The process takes away the mystique and magic stigmas associated with creative thinking yet allows the event to remain magical and mystical.  Participants will enjoy the experience, come up with the kinds of ideas that can be nurtured into useful solutions, and want to do it again.  The process in its simple form will generate many ideas that can be used immediately or cataloged and stored for later use.  Finally, the entire team will understand how important ideas are to the process and more importantly the collaboration an idea needs to encounter to become a really powerful idea.

Creative people are generally motivated by the possibilities associated with a great idea.  The work, individual expertise, and individual creativity skills are all motivators.  This motivation is intrinsic or comes from within.  Intrinsically motivated people approach the work in a positive manner; they are engaged with the work (Mckeown, 2014).  Intrinsic motivation is, indeed, very strong.  However, intrinsically motivated people can fall prey to the demotivators they face every day in the organization.

Some people are more motivated by extrinsic rewards.  “Dragging a new idea kicking and screaming into the real world needs different kinds of motivation.  The best motivation depends on the person, situation, timing, and task” (Mckeown, 2014, p. 169).  As is the case in every leadership scenario, the leader is charged with providing the motivation needed to influence the people to want to do the work.  To do that, the leader must know the people not only as individuals, but also as team members that create the unique personality of the team.  The leader must then skillfully apply that motivation to the good effect of everyone.  This is no different than in any situation that requires leader intervention for motivation; the same rules apply.  It is, however, more important (arguably) to get it right with innovation teams.  Innovation is practical creativity which can only be achieved through creativity.  The creative process can be viewed as a dream and think activity.  Not in a judgmental way, but in a connecting way.  Dreams are easily forgotten and in my completely layman opinion, this is because dreams are abstract and disconnected.  To bring a dream into the real world, it needs to be connected to something concrete, even if just temporarily and loosely.  Getting back on track, this dream and think process is hard work and mentally exhausting.  To achieve this high level of creative thinking, the people must be motivated.  The leader has to make sure all of the organizational demotivators have been addressed and each individual is motivated at a level and in a way that motivates the entire team.  The good news is that motivation is catching.  Motivation has a way of sustaining itself.  The bad news is if the leader fails to motivate the people toward a task, creativity will not reach the mystical and magical level I previously discussed and the ideas will not reach the quality level needed to be of any benefit (Mckeown, 2014). 

Amabile’s Internal and External Motivation Model takes some of the guess work out of motivating innovators.  It illustrates the work environment with three interlocking circles which create one area where all circles intersect each other. Where the circles remain independent of the other circles are labeled resources, organizational motivation, and management practices.  Where they all intersect is called innovation.  The output is labeled impacts and feeds a set of circles physically identical to the one I previously described.  This set represents individual/team creativity.  The circles are labeled task motivation, expertise, and creativity skills. The intersected area in the middle is labeled creativity.  You have to view the model as two independent models then as a single model.  The work environment consists of resources, management practices, and organizational motivation.  Each of these have an effect on the others and they all have an effect on innovation in the center.  The output is called impact.  The other circles follow the same logic with different labels.    What this shows is the connection between the work environment and individual/team creativity.  It shows how forces both internal and external can affect motivation.  It further infers what the leader can do to address motivation issues (Mckeown, 2014). 

It is not a complicated process although mastery takes dedicated effort by the leader to know and understand everyone on the team, but it is a critically important process.  The team may be able to determine the amount of work to do and may understand the creative thinking process, but if the leader cannot motivate the team and its individuals properly, the work will not get done or worse it may be done and produce sub-quality ideas.  Without motivation, the buck stops with the first person that no longer cares.

Canfield and Smith (2011) introduced the final strategy I will discuss.  They introduced Dr. Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats.  According to Dr. Bono, people utilize six types of thinking every day.  To each of these types Bono attached a different color hat and used that hat color to describe the characteristics of each thinking type.  The hats are as follows: (Canfield & Smith, 2011)

1. White – Neutral and objective thinking, facts, what we know and want to know.
2. Yellow – Optimistic thinking, explains why it will work
3. Black – Judgmental thinking, devil’s advocate, why it will not work, assess risk
4. Green – Possibilities, alternatives, and new ideas
5. Red – Feelings, hunches, intuition; “this is how I feel”
6. Blue – Managing the thinking process, control hat, problems and questions boss

Six Thinking Hats has potential.  It can be used to develop an individual’s awareness of their own thinking and therefore improve their ability to rationally think through an issue to an objective solution.  As team members, individuals will get to see different points of view as the group sequences through the different hats.  The benefit would be that individual thinking expands and becomes more understanding of other points of view.  The benefit to the organization is better decisions, more thorough solutions, and greater teamwork. 

The process seems more in line with critical thinking, if group critical thinking is even possible.  Canfield and Smith (2011) emphasized the proper use of Six Thinking Hats several times and spoke about the consequences of improperly using Six Training Hats.  I think I understand how it should flow, but they convinced me of the importance and I will pursue training and certification prior to using this process.  If it proves to be what I think it will be, I will make it required training throughout the organization. 

Briefly, the process is used to consider one issue at a time with each person in the group figuratively wearing the same color hat at the same time.  Going through Six Hats is basically sequencing through the six questions associated with the different color hats and gathering data from all the participants then move to the next hat , next question and so on.  The questions are as follows: (Canfield & Smith, 2011)

1. White - What do we know and what do we want to know?
2.  Yellow – Why might the idea work?
3. Black – Why might the idea not work?
4. Green – What are some alternatives to the idea?
5. Red – What is your intuition about the idea?
6. Blue – Knowing what we know now, what should we do next?

It seems simple enough, but there are some techniques that are not as straight forward and are less intuitive.  As I stated earlier, this tool has potential; I look forward to the training.

What does this tell you about the process of innovation?

All of these strategies to innovation tells me that the innovation process is dynamic.  Tools may work well in one situation and not at all in a different situation.  The good innovator will fill his toolkit so that he or she can adapt the approach to fit the situation.  More now than ever, I see innovation as a group collaboration process in which every idea is important and meaningful to the process.  However, there are a number of tools that are not specifically innovation tools that can be used to help the innovation process along.  Training should be considered to further team members understanding of innovation.  Innovation is, indeed, a complex process and often innovation emerges in a way that cannot be easily explained.  Understanding as much as possible would help individuals contribute more to the process and gain confidence in their innovation skills.  Innovation has risen to the top of priorities and is a source of discomfort for many companies.  It is time to look hard at how business operates, the types of questions they ask, and how they see and prepare for the future.  My guess is that many companies that do not currently have innovation as part of their strategic plan will change their minds in the very near future. 

~Pete

References:

Canfield, J., & Smith, G. (2011). Imagine: Ideation skills for improvement and innovation today. Holland, Michigan: Black Lake Press.

Dugan, R. E., & Gabriel, K. J. (2013). "Special Forces" Innovation: How DARPA attacks problems. Harvard Business Review, 91(10), 74-84.

Mckeown, M. (2014). The innovation book. Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.

A642.5.3.RB_BorutyAlan_Making Smart Groups

Making Smart Groups

Can these concepts help promote innovation within an organization?

The Sunstein and Hastie article for the Harvard Business Review, Making Dumb Groups Smarter, offers seven suggestions to mitigate or eliminate the effects of heuristics and bias on individuals in group situations.   Specifically, the suggestions are as follows:

Silence the leader
“Prime” critical thinking
Reward group success
Assign roles
Appoint a devil’s advocate
Establish contrarian teams
The Delphi Method

Organizations are generally made up of groups that work together.  Even if those teams work together on a daily basis, applying these scientifically proven methods at worst will do no harm. At best they will eliminate bias affected decisions.  Ultimately, I believe they will significantly reduce the number of heuristic and bias decisions.

Innovation is a group process that potentially involves people from all over the organization sharing ideas and collaborating together.  It is a real possibility that self-silencing would occur in group discussions on how to best make an idea useful or during any collaboration.  I believe utilizing the concepts would promote innovation, but it would certainly improve innovation by virtue of more information provided by more people.

How do they compare and contrast with the other readings from this module?

I have read nothing in this module that is contrary to the suggestions offered by Sunstein and Hastie (2014).  However, the readings do describe a several situations that would benefit from groups where individuals share information freely and provide opinions according their own conscious, unaffected by group dynamics.  Canfield and Smith (2011) introduce creative thinking skills.  Creativity breeds creativity.  Creative thinking skills are structured group processes that are designed to generate new ideas.  The results of a Booz Allen study of the Global Innovation 1000 concluded that successful innovations are a function of the quality of an organizations innovation process, not the amount of money spent on innovation.  Further, the report concluded that processes that took advantage of collaboration were most successful (2005 Resilience Report from Booz Allen Hamilton as cited by Canfield and Smith, 2011).  If processes that utilize collaboration throughout the organization provide the best innovation results, then ensuring that the people collaborating are doing so without the ill-effects of heuristics or bias just makes good sense.  Canfield and Smith (2011) built their process to accommodate collaboration and group activities.  “Creative teams can benefit from doing much of their work together for all to hear and build on each other’s ideas.  Room set up is the same, using Post-Its and working on the wall is the same” (p. 125). 

Mckeown (2014) describes similar activities that would be affected by heuristics and bias.  Selecting ideas to make useful, determining the most effective strategy for the innovation process, making the innovation popular, and selling new ideas are all collaborative group activities that would be affected (part four).  The company would probably not recognize there was a problem until seemingly sure-win innovations started failing to produce.  The innovation process is complex and difficult to predict with any accuracy; adding complication to the process could make it unmanageable.

Can they be combined into a process that can be used to promote innovation across the entire organization?

My short answer is yes, absolutely.  The concepts suggested by Sunstein and Hastie (2014) apply to any group activity.  They are team development rules of engagement, if you will.  They are inserted into the groups rules of engagement by the leader, invisible to the remaining members.  Organizations that incorporate these concepts into every team or group it assembles can worry less about the effects of heuristics and bias on group decisions, recommendations, and outcomes.  Indeed, this would have positive impact innovation groups and would likely promote more and successful innovations.  Processes that benefit from the wisdom of groups can only realize that benefit if every member of the group contributes to that process.  The concepts described by Sunstein and Hastie (2014) are not comprehensive; they cannot eliminate all the effects of heuristics and bias, but they do minimize those effects to a negligible level.  The concepts are supported by tomes of empirical data and have been proven effective by numerous studies in numerous countries over the last decade or so (Sunstein and Hastie, 2014, p. 98).  Understanding the implication of employing these concepts, why would an organization not choose to incorporate them into all of its group activities? 

~Pete

References:

Canfield, J., & Smith, G. (2011). Imagine: Ideation skills for improvement and innovation today. Holland, Michigan: Black Lake Press.

Mckeown, M. (2014). The innovation book: How to manage ideas and execution for outstanding results. Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, United Kingdom. Pearson Education Limited.

Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2014). Making dumb groups smarter. Harvard Business Review, 92(12), 90-98.

A642.4.3.RB_BorutyAlan_The End of Innovation

The End of Innovation

Reflect on this presentation and compare and contrast it to your experience and the readings from this module.

Robert Gordon took a surprising position on US economic growth in his video presentation, The Death of Innovation, the End of Growth.  He argues that the best advancements are behind us.  Electricity, indoor plumbing, transportation he adds, are all innovations that created significant growth but they have matured and now growth is declining.  There is nothing else left to innovate powerful enough to bring growth back and counter the headwinds of demographics, education, debt, and inequality.  Future innovation would be unable to reverse the growth problems of today and the future (Gordon, 2013).  Aside from my opinion that Gordon’s presentation was leading and poorly supported, I believe his position is myopic at best.

My experience is that humans are, in general, curious, imaginative, forward thinking, creative and tenacious in their quest for scientific discovery, medical breakthroughs, technological advancement, and new “things” in general.  I have never experienced the wide-spread defeatist attitude that Gordon seems to imply through omission.  Mckeown (2014) teaches us that “the history of innovation is essentially the history of practical creative problem-solving which is - pretty much – the history of what it means to be human.  Our curiosity drives us to explore.  Our desire drives us to improve” (p. xxvii).  The human spirit should never be discounted or underestimated. 

In your opinion, what fallacies do you see in this presentation? Can you match what we have achieved?

The premise of Gordon’s entire presentation is the fallacy.  My interpretation of Gordon’s premise is:

Economic growth is ending and it is a result of the death of innovation.  Innovation is dying because all of the powerful innovations have already occurred.  There is nothing left that could possibly be as powerful as the innovations of the last 150 years.  Economic growth has slowed since 2007 and appears to have stagnated.  There must not be any more powerful innovations possible. 

The premise is actually a faulty deduction (Jones, n. d.).  Robert Gordon does not believe that innovations of the future can match the power of innovations past.  While I agree that electricity and indoor plumbing were powerful innovations that truly changed the world, I am not so naïve to believe tomorrow cannot bring something even bigger.  Before electricity emerged as the latest innovation the vast majority of humans could not even conceive its possibility.  Creativity takes the innovator beyond what is possible.  They can see what others do not see (Mckeown, 2014, p. 11).  Mr. Gordon is not an innovator.

Mr. Gordon’s idea of powerful innovation is based on what he knows from past innovations.  It is easy to apply these ideas, generally, to all innovations.  The problem is ‘electricity lit up the world’ is now default for current powerful innovations.  And while it is powerful, not every innovation fits that mold.  With the mind focused on old ideas, new powerful ideas will slip by unnoticed.  Or worse, thought not to exist at all.  Letting go of old ideas about innovation may help Gordon understand that new ideas exist and solutions are possible (Mckeown, 2014, p. 24).  

Gordon issued a challenge on behalf of the innovators of the last 150 years.  Can you match what we have achieved?  My answer is no.  Innovation does not seek to match or get one up on the last innovation.  Nothing can beat electricity or indoor plumbing in terms of importance.  Innovation improves or expands ideas that exist or introduces what has never been thought of before.  It is the newness of an idea fresh out of the creative mind that becomes an obsession for the innovator.  The obsession will not end until the idea becomes a reality (Mckeown, 2014).  If Gordon could return the past innovators to the stage, I am positive each one of them would confirm this to be true. 

Are there ideas yet to surface that can provide economic and personal benefits similar to those of the past 150 years?  Absolutely.  What they are and where they will come from are unknown, even to the one who will think of them for the very first time.  Innovation is not dead or even dying for that matter.  It is inventing life’s little conveniences.  It is giving us things we did not know we needed.  It is taking businesses to new levels of success.  Innovation is alive and well in the creative minds of people all over the world.

~Pete

References:

Gordon, R. (2013). The death of innovation, the end of growth [Video file]. TED Talks, 2013, April 23.  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYHd7rpOTe8.

Jones, S. (n. d.). Types of faulty logic (Fallacies). Retrieved from http://jonesclassesonline.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/3/4/2734694/faulty_logic.pdf

Mckeown, M. (2014). The Innovation Book: How to Manage Ideas and Execution for Outstanding Results. UK: Pearson Education Limited.

A642.3.3.RB_BorutyAlan_Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned

As I read the assigned reading this week, I was looking closely for the hidden lessons I am supposed to be learning and ultimately writing about in this blog.  I was on the third or fourth page of Safian’s Find Your Mission article written for Fast Company when it hit me.  The entire world has changed in a significant and fundamental way and I somehow missed it completely.  How can that happen?  Do not answer that.

Detail three lessons learned and how they impact your view of innovation and leadership.

1.       Individuals today value meaning and purpose in their work, more so than money.  They want to be a part of something inherently good.  Job security for commitment to the company contracts no longer have value.  They want to be passionate about their work. 

a.      This changes my view on leadership, but only slightly.  These workers are not motivated by the same things as older generations are.  They are motivated by their work.  They tend to need less direct leadership involvement but require frequent feedback.  Eventually, this generation will flatten out organizations.  Get these individuals engaged in their work and performance will soar.  My view on leadership is not really impacted but it is affected.  I may not be able use even similar styles of leadership in the organization.  But, that would be an issue I would have to resolve.  I think the transformation to a workforce that thrives on meaningful work and purpose is a good shift.  Perhaps backstabbing over promotions and other attention will cease to exist.

b.      The impact to my view on innovation is minimal.  An organization that has established a culture of innovation and considers innovation as a strategic strength will be able to bring these individuals into the innovative process.  As long as the company purpose is not conflicted or damaged. 

2.      For the companies, purpose and mission are more than just statements. When a company’s purpose is focused on something beyond money, the more money the company makes.  Examples in the article were advancing humankind and integrity in selecting ingredients for food.  If a company finds their mission and they operate according to it the mission often becomes their greatest competitive advantage.

a.      This would tend to impact my view on leadership positively.  I tend to associate leaders with the company and if the company lives by their mission, I associate the leaders to that mission as well.  I realize it is an assumption.  But I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt up front.  If proven wrong I can easily adjust appropriately.

b.      My view on innovation would also be swayed positively.  If the purpose and mission are inherently good the company’s behavior should follow in all endeavors

3.      Leaders will have to adjust to the differences in today’s workers versus yesterdays.  This adjustment could be a difficult one.  One would not think so because companies are operating with greater meaning and purpose along with the younger generation.  It is not always that simple.

a.      My view on leadership would remain unchanged until I witnessed interactions to verify they are communicating effectively would be important to me.  Sometimes people with similar ideas have slightly differing opinions on the details.  Although unlikely, this can lead conflict and resentment.   

b.      The impact to my view of innovation would be minimal but I would watch closely until things were running smoothly.  Helping the company to achieve its goals falls into both party’s strength.  A cooperative relationship is still a necessity.

Discuss your innovative skills and detail three ways you can make a "useful" contribution to your organization

I honestly like the transformation occurring within the workforce today.  This shift is more give than take.  If everyone shared these same beliefs.  The climate in the work center would improve drastically overnight.  Meaning and purpose is available to everyone.  I may be reading into it but I believe someone with that set of core beliefs would be more respectful, tolerant and participative.

My innovative skills include leading innovation, establishing and maintaining a culture of innovation and idea screening.  I am not necessarily the most creative person, but I can help with generating ideas.  However, I would probably be better suited to screen and analyze ideas.  When the time came, I would be able to help with making ideas useful.  Introducing a group of people who think and behave differently adds diversity into the organization.  That is almost always a good thing.

~Pete

References:

Safian, R. (2014). Find your mission (cover story). Fast Company, (190), 66-110. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=753597de-0e90-47ee-a1de-c19336933805%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=98741012&db=bth

*This entire post is based on Safian’s article, Find your mission as referenced above

A642.2.3.RB_BorutyAlan_Organizing for Innovation

Organizing for Innovation

What formal and informal innovation processes exist?

I have been retired now for over four years, but in in my thirty plus years in the workforce, I do not recall a single conversation about innovation. Really.  In my time in the Air Force, people were able to submit suggestions through the suggestion program.  This name was changed to the Idea Program a few years before I retired.  Approved ideas were eligible for cash awards based on how much the idea saved the Air Force.  Individuals could get up to $10,000 at the time.  I believe this program has changed since I retired.  Another method for making changes applied to technical orders (TOs).  These are the books that Airmen use to do their jobs.  If a discrepancy was discovered in the TO, the person that found it would write a detailed description of the discrepancy and a detailed description of the replacement wording or drawing.  Then the Airman would fill out an AFTO Form 22and submit to the responsible agency.  For a while a person could receive cash awards for TO changes but it was very little cash and not very often.  I believe the cash incentive was discontinued. 

How effective are they?

The Air Force Idea program is (was) fairly successful.  The cash awards were attractive to many Airmen and drove submission rates. 

The AFTO 22 process was very difficult to complete and get submitted.  Simple typo corrections in procedures would come back for correction three or four times.  Technical corrections that affected important content might go back and forth for a year or more.  In fact, people just quit turning them in …yes, they really were that much trouble.  The process was eventually included in Airmen training records.  Everyone had to do one to upgrade to the next skill level.  The average number of AFTO22s an Airman will complete throughout a career…one.  Other avenues were available to affect change.  They were all local and mostly got very little usage.

What else can be done to leverage the effectiveness of the innovation process?

I honestly do not know.  The Air Force in this sense is a consumer.  For the products it uses such as parts and equipment, they are built to Mil-Spec. The Air Force endured the quality movement many years ago and still has some of the remnants.  Continuous Improvement Programs still exist and they or some similar programs are used for processes and procedures under local control.  For processes and procedures outside of local control there are specified methods to request changes.  As I stated, I never heard a discussion about innovation, but the Air Force was almost always undergoing some sort of change.

Why is usefulness such an important part of innovation? Go to the Index of The Innovation book and see all the pages where usefulness is discussed.

Usefulness (of ideas) appears on 24 pages of the Innovation Book (if I counted correctly).  During the creative phase, ideas are generated without any constraints and the more the better.  Ideas are saved and catalogued but have not been made useful.  Useful goes beyond feasible (can it be done) and considers should we do it.  If we do it, how can it be used, who would use it, how much would it be used, how long would it be used.  No team would want to drove forward with an idea that was evaluated and considered only marginally useful.  Innovations need to be successful and are expected to generate a return (profit) on the innovation investment.  The bottom line is usefulness is at the very heart of what innovation is supposed to do (Mckeown, 2014).

List 3 examples of innovation that did not work.

Technically these do not conform to innovation definition.

Working on the AWACS (E-3) requires a variety of stands.  To gain access to the rotodome for maintenance a B-6 stand is necessary.  The bottom of the rotodome is about thirty-seven off the ground.  The B-6 stand is very large, very tall, very heavy and very difficult to maneuver especially arMoving the B-6 stand takes five people.and it simply does not go where the team pushing it wants it to go.  Because of this many, many Aircraft have been damaged by coming into contact with the stand.  After a whileThe Air Force generated a new requirement to replace the B-6 stand. The new requirement called for a motorized, and drivable stand. The contract awarded and development began.  Two years later the first T-REX maintenance stand delivered to the unit.  It is enormous.  Easily four or five times larger than the B6 stand,   The driver does not have visibility around the stand.  It required more spotters than towing the aircraft The contract delivered as the contractors demonstrated it met all of the requirements. I met all requirements, but it did not meet the expectations of anyoneThe contractors demonstrated perfect control when they drove the stand near the arcraft.  To my knowledge, no one else ever did.  It was ours. One month later we got the second and final standthe stand could not be used for its intended purpose.I do not know what other uses the Air Force got out of the T-REX before they went to the boneyard.  This failure was caused by the Air Force not keeping tight enough controls

 A radar trainer had a similar story

When I learned of this trainer it was already two years out of schedule and over one million dollars over budget.  The trainer was in place in the schoolhouse and was capable of running a handful of very simple instructor lessons.  The contractors were nowhere close to meeting the system requirements and had admitted they could not meet the requirements.  It was simply not possible.  Not much later the Air Force killed the contract and took possession of a beautiful but useless 13-million-dollar trainer.  The end result found the Air Force at fault for controlling the requirements too tightly.  The requirements forced the contractor to write code in a specific language using specific interface documents which created a situation where placing two modules in the software routine at the same time caused conflict and generated critical failures.   the Air Force requirements specified how the contractor was to complete the software.  The contractors followed our instructions and created two modules that were mutually exclusive and could not operate together. Other critical parts of the system used resources from the two errant modules which prevented repackaging of the software to correct the problem.  Attempting repair would have taken the contract back to design and even then, they did not believe it could be corrected fully.  But they would try for another eight million dollars.  The contract was done.  The Air Force received materials that had not been delivered and the contractor received the contract balance for their trouble.  

There is certainly room in the Air Force to benefit from innovation, but they have other ways to make needed changes satisfactorily.  It is not likely that innovation will reach or be applicable the lower levels of the organization.

~Pete

Reference:

Mckeown, M. (2014). The innovation book: How to manage ideas and execution for outstanding results. Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, United Kingdom. Pearson Education Limited.