A642.9.3.RB_BorutyAlan_The Innovation Experience

The Innovation Experience

Looking back over the last nine weeks and how this course unfolded, there were many important elements discussed that created the innovation experience for me.  They are all interconnected making it difficult to tell where one element stops and the next begins.  For this reason, I found it difficult to isolate three as more important than the others.  My perspective since the first lesson has been, what do I have to do or change for my people to see how important innovation is and want to participate in the innovative process.  I have always believed that the leader cannot expect anything more from the followers than what they see in their leader.  Therefore, for my people to become innovative, they must first see that behavior in me.  Fortunately, this made selecting three elements much easier.  Unfortunately, it means I have some changes to make. 

Identify the three elements that had the largest influence on your perspective on innovation

Nurture Your Creative Genius

Innovation depends on creative thinking to generate good ideas (Mckeown, 2014).  I have never considered myself to be creative and I still would not label myself as such.  However, I am getting better.  Mckeown (2014) explained it this way. “If there are no new ideas, there is no innovation.  And if there is no creativity, there are no new ideas” (p. 3). 

Building a Better, Bigger Brain

Regardless of how creative or smart you are, you cannot know or think it all.  To be most effective, not only do you need to realize what you can contribute but also what others bring to the table.  Everyone has something to offer to the process.  Know who they are and what they can contribute, then use them as necessary to grow your brain.

Giving Up Old Ideas (to make room) for Better Ideas

Sometimes what you already know can get in the way of learning what you really need to know.  Old ideas define where you are currently.  To get to where you want to be, you have to replace old ideas with better ideas.  A closed mind never innovated anything.

Define the elements and why they are important.

Nurturing your creative genius means that creativity is an intentional thinking process that can be learned or improved by employing a few techniques and practice.  As a self-identified non-creative person, it means that I can learn to be more creative.  This is critically important to innovation because creativity or creative thinking is the foundation for innovation.  Without creative thinking, innovation cannot exist (Mckeown, 2014).

I define building a better, bigger brain to mean two heads are better than one and, within limits, the more heads the better.  Building a better, bigger brain is about deliberate collaboration.  There are multiple ways to build a bigger brain depending on the situation.  Building a better, bigger brain is important because there are many different roles to fill for any one person to handle.  A better, bigger brain “connects the creativity and passion of many different kinds of people” (Mckeown, 2014, p. 34).  Additionally, a bigger brain improves your ability to “deliberately generate additional useful insights and ideas” (Canfield & Smith, 2011, p. 117).

Giving up old ideas for better ideas reminds me to keep an open mind and accept that the way we have always done it is not always the best way to do it.  Sometimes getting rid of the old idea is the only way to accept and follow the better idea.  Giving up old ideas takes intentional mental preparation.  This is important because old ideas, even after they are outdated, still support our traditions, habits, and biases.  If we do not make room for new ideas, the new ideas cannot be tested.  If they cannot be tested they may be rejected even if there is clear evidence supporting them.  If we do not make room for new ideas, we cannot move forward and take advantage of better ideas.

Discuss how you will use them in the future.

I will continue to nurture my creative genius daily.  Cognitively I allow myself to think freely on random topics, try to come up with at least ten different answers to the same question, and think of as many alternative ways to accomplish a job as I can.  My answers can be completely off the wall.  As long as I am not producing the obvious, usual or status quo response to an input, Mckeown (2014) considers my thinking to be creative.  By trying to solve problems other people think are unimportant or impossible, I can come to understand how creativity feels.  Thinking and feeling creative will begin to generate creative focus.    At work I would introduce and explain creative thinking to the employees.  I would encourage each to find something within their area of expertise that could be better and to come up with as many ideas as possible to make it better.  From there I would let it grow.

Building a better, bigger brain should always be better first, then bigger.  The other way around will only serve to create chaos.  Whether building from the top down or the bottom up, putting the right person on the team is more important than putting more people on the team.  Evaluate the requirements first, then build (Mckeown, 2014).  My organization is very well networked. Everyone is connected to everyone all the time.  So, building a better, bigger brain is done by creating a collaborative group based on the innovation topic, innovation source, and skillsets needed.  I encourage collaboration on day-to-day work to improve the quality and completeness of work and reduce the amount of rework caused by interoffice conflict.

I use ‘give up old ideas for better ideas’ as a reminder to keep an open mind and to actively listen for ideas with potential.  I do not vocalize it, but I sometimes find myself thinking in ‘it has always been done this way’ terms.  The next thought is a rationalization, how bad can it be if it has always been done this way.  Which is completely irrational.  Most times the thought has come and gone before I realize.  Then I allow it to pass.  I am not proud of it but, I am guilty.  If I am thinking like that, then I must be overloaded with old ideas.  I need to make room and find a better idea for the one that has always been this way.  This element in a way holds me accountable or reminds me to be accountable for my thinking.  If I no longer have room to consider a different, new, better, or otherwise idea.  I either need to get rid of old ideas or I need to step aside.

Each of these elements in innovation are for one reason, new ideas.  They make sure the ideas are generated, the right people are in place with open minds to make them useful and better.  Putting the elements to work even when not innovating means that the organization is comfortable with the elements when the time comes to innovate.

~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.

A642.8.3.RB_BorutyAlan_How Dangerous are Lean Start-ups?

How Dangerous are Lean Start-ups?

The term, lean start-ups, is new for me.  After reading two articles, looking at a web page, and reviewing a couple of case studies, I am certainly not an expert on the subject.  I have, however, learned enough to believe that the lean start-up process has brought developing a product and starting a company to support that product from the way it has been done for the last one hundred years into the 21^st century.    If you are an old company starting a new business using traditional methodology and competing with a new company using lean start-up principles, the chances are you will not be first to market or best to market.  In fact, research indicates there is a seventy-five percent chance you will fail (Blank, 2013). 

Discuss the implications of lean start-ups and why they can be so disruptive to well-established, older, industry giants.

The well-established, older, industry giants still follow the traditional methods when starting a new business.  They start by writing a business plan (usually in isolation) that describes the hole in the market and the solution to fill that hole.  It includes financial forecasts years into the future before money is raised, a product is developed, or the idea is put in motion. Once a good business plan gets the interest of and money from investors, the entrepreneur begins product development (again, in isolation).  It is not until the product is developed and launched that any real customer feedback is received.  If that feedback is negative and the product does not sell, then all of the time, effort, and money invested in the product is lost and the venture fails.  This is the process upon which companies have been created for decades. 

Lean start-ups have turned the entire process upside down and pose a significant threat to anyone using the traditional start-up method.  Lean start-up is just now beginning to have an impact, but it is significant.  It is easier, faster, cheaper, and far less risky than traditional start-up methods (Blank, 2013).  Understanding both processes a little better, I am not surprised that the traditional start-up method has such a high failure rate.  The implications to the industry giants are significant.  If they have an idea upon which they want to create a new business unit, the process they use is ineffective, if not obsolete.  Even if it can be used internally, any external competition will beat them to market with a tested and in-demand product, not a prototype.  This is what makes lean start-up disruptive to the industry giants.  Lean start-ups will eventually begin out-innovating these established giants product by product.

The good news is the industry giants did not get to be industry giants by being dumb.  Corporations like General Electric, Qualcomm, and Intuit have already begun practicing lean start-up methodology (Blank, 2013).  I suspect this has sent a strong message and the others will soon follow.

Identify in detail, the elements that provide a unique competitive position and how to combat such an adversary

There are many differences between lean start-up and traditional methodology.  Lean start-up is defined as “a temporary organization designed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model” (Blank, 2013, p. 67).  Lean start-up follows three principles.  These principles or elements create a unique competitive position for lean start-ups.  First, they do not assume or write a business plan.  They begin with their untested ideas summarized on a one-page business model canvas.  Then they go out and search for a business model that works.  Second, lean start-up does not assume it knows what the customer needs or wants, lean start-up meets with potential users, purchasers, and partners and ask for feedback on product features, pricing, distribution, and acquisition.  The intent is to test the idea and get feedback as quickly as possible.  From the feedback, lean start-up immediately begins to build a minimum viable product (MVP) (Blank, 2014).  As soon as the MVP is done, the lean start-up immediately seeks feedback.  The feedback is used to revise the MVP.  The modified MVP goes back for feedback again.  In this iterative manner, a product is developed that already has an interested customer base.  If for any reason the product is simply not working, lean start-up will pivot to a different idea.  Third, lean start-up uses agile development to iteratively and incrementally create the product.  In concert with customer development, agile development is used to create the MVP and each iterative revision (Blank, 2014).

The real advantage of lean start-up is achieved through customer interaction and feedback.  This feedback takes much of the uncertainty out of the startup process and is used to create the business model and develop the product.  In the traditional start-up, these items are created in ‘stealth mode’ and shrouded in secrecy to protect the idea from being discovered by the competition (Blank, 2013).  When the business plan and product emerge, they are guess work based on assumptions about the customer that have traditionally been wrong seventy-five percent of the time.  That is no longer an acceptable statistic.  Lean start-up follows the notion that customer feedback is more important than secrecy and produces far better results.

To combat the advantages of lean start-up, the industry giants must come to understand the importance of customer feedback and adopt lean start-up methodology (or develop something similar) as their core practice.  The one thing I see that is preventing the giants from making the change is their aversion to transparency.  Remove the shroud and the options will open for change and with that change will come the opportunity to remain viable among the competition.

~Pete

Reference:

Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 63-72.

A642.7.3.RB_BorutyAlan_Leading through Disruptive Times

Leading through Disruptive Times

I must admit. I did not really understand disruption until tonight.  I thought I did, but trying to reason through the concepts, the fundamental truth escaped me.  I was panicked and completely unsure of how I would complete this assignment.  I found the missing pieces watching a video where Clayton Christensen (2013) explained disruption at Said Business School, University of Oxford.  In this video, Christensen labeled innovation into three types with three different purposes.  He tied the types of innovation into the economy which, indeed, was fascinating. But that can wait for another blog entry.  I now have the information I need to answer the questions posed by this assignment.  Better late than never I suppose.

There are three types of innovation and they serve three distinct purposes.  Sustaining innovation is used to make existing products better.  Efficiency innovation makes the same product cheaper.  Disruptive innovation transforms complicated and expensive products currently in the market simpler and more affordable to a much larger population.  When the disrupter has successfully taken that product and the incumbent no longer competes for that product the disruption is completed. But the price drops drastically when the incumbent withdraws. Now the disrupter seeks the smallest margin product the incumbent offers and begins to disrupt it.  It makes sense to everyone.  The incumbent can realize greater profit if they focus their effort on higher margin products, so they gladly get out of the lower margin business.  The disrupter gladly takes on the business because it generates sound profit.  This can continue unnoticed for years for a few reasons.  The incumbent’s quest for greater profit is successful.  Every time the incumbent got out they made more money.  The disrupter is seeking the low margin products that cost them to keep anyway.  The disruption takes years to complete and the incumbent simply does not see what is really happening.  In this manner the disrupter can take over an entire market as long as, at each level, they can deliver the product and meet the standards the incumbent used to provide (Christensen, 2013). 

Leading an organization that is focused on disruption would be different than leading one focused on sustaining, but perhaps less than one might think.  In the sustaining organization, the people are very familiar with the products and if the innovation is incremental. most likely the innovation as well. The sustaining organization would be back to business as usual almost immediately. 

The disruptive organization routinely deals with uncertainty and high-risk activities sustaining organizations may not have to endure.  If the disrupting organization has always focused on disruption they too would be back to business as usual.  On the one hand, the leader guides people through what the next increment will look like for the product and prepares the organization for upcoming innovations.  On the other hand, the leader must guide people through the process of finding future disruption and the work to get the project started.

Since innovation of any kind takes so long and the business is back to normal the leader is responsible for remaining alert to changing conditions that could affect or upset existing plans, being consistent, being committed to the plan, and being patient while innovation slowly generates its results. 

Now, consider the likelihood of both occurring at the same time; would this change the way you navigated or lead the organization through these scenarios? 

I think it would be highly unlikely that both would occur simultaneously.  But if it did, I would take on an even more active role because it could cause manning and expertise shortages.  After, getting the dust settled and confidence returned that things are under control I would withdraw and allow the organization to run, but I would show up more often than normal to show support and offer help. 

~Pete

Reference:

Christensen, C. (2013). Disruptive innovation [Video file]. Said Business School, University of Oxford, 2013 June 19. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpkoCZ4vBSI

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