CHAPTER ONE

THE STRATEGIC IMPETUS FOR INNOVATION

SOME 59 MILLION YEARS AGO, a solitary triceratops pushed slowly through the heavy foliage of what is now southern Montana. She was beautiful—or she would have been to a male triceratops. At 26 feet long, with three prominent horns and weighing in at a svelte 20 tons, she was as desirable as a triceratops could be. But there were no male triceratops left. She was the last dinosaur, the very last of a great multitude of similar species that had roamed the earth for 140 million years. We don’t know whether she died of old age, disease, or loneliness. But she died nevertheless, and there were no more.

Paleontologists tell us that dinosaurs vanished because their environment changed. They are not sure exactly what changed, but something changed, and these seemingly invincible animals were unable to adapt and perished. There were, however, some exceptions. Many paleontologists believe that birds were almost certainly evolved from the small bipedal dinosaurs of the Jurassic era. These creatures did change. They were able to adapt. They were able to evolve.

In the natural world, evolution is a continuous process. There are currently 2 million species sharing our fragile blue sphere, but over the past 600 million years, some 2 billion species have lived and evolved. Of all the species that have ever lived, today, 99.9 percent are extinct.

The natural environment changes, and business organizations share an environment of similar continuous change. The economy, political and legislative requirements, competition (both domestic and global), and technology are all advancing at an uncomfortable pace. The organization is itself also changing. It evolves each day through changes in personnel, knowledge, customer base, and stockholder value. And as with the natural world, many businesses also become extinct. The companies that survive and prosper are the ones that are continually changing in ways that favor their continued survival.

Every business will adapt, or it will disappear. The key to survival and vitality is innovation. The way to premium profits is innovation. Peter Drucker once wrote that innovation is the only thing that will support a premium price. We agree. The stairway to a successful future is a continuing series of creative improvements.

THE BUSINESS OF INNOVATION

OVER THE PAST quarter-century, we have worked with a variety of companies. Some were innovative, successful, and vibrant. More were innovative only when necessity demanded it, though most were able to “get along” okay. A few found innovation difficult, troublesome, and expensive. But none had found a way to successfully and consistently manage the innovation gremlin that determines their ultimate survival and prosperity. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that none were content with “their way” for the management of innovation. Even the best—particularly the best—were sure they could do better and in fact were actively seek that better way.

This book is about stimulating, creating, and directing innovation. It’s about selecting the best area in which to focus innovation. It’s about exploiting unexpected innovations and implementing innovation in ways that result in competitive advantage. It is about the excitement, the confidence, and the vibrant environment that comes with being an innovative organization. In short, it’s about managing the ever-evolving successful business.

THREE BIG IDEAS

IN OUR DISCUSSIONS with organizations great and small, we hear three recurring themes, three big ideas that surface again and again. These ideas are omnipresent and powerful beyond their humble countenance. If neglected, these ideas will reduce even the most profitable opportunities to just another mundane day at the office. The ideas are:

1.Innovation matters.

2.Management matters.

3.Strategy is the key enabler.

Let’s look at the three big ideas.

INNOVATION MATTERS

IN VIRTUALLY EVERY case, our discussions with managers and employees alike identify innovation as an essential ingredient to future success. After all, every organization innovates to some degree. For some, innovation takes the form of creative and successful new products. Others rely on innovative solutions for achieving cost reduction and higher quality service. Still others see innovation as the source of competitive advantage to secure greater market share. At every level, conscientious members of the corporate family see innovative ways to help the organization prosper. Innovation matters—and it matters to everyone.

Why does innovation matter? It matters because when organisms fail to adapt, they die out—corporate organisms included. In the natural world of the triceratops and the bird, evolution helps each organism to survive by producing alternatives and mutations, some of which are better suited to their environment, and thus they go on. Innovation is the organizational equivalent of evolution. Without a continuous flow of innovative energy, the organization is sluggish, if it can change at all. It is vulnerable to changes in its environment, usually from competition but maybe from legislation or technology. The organization does not shape events. Instead, events act upon the organization. It is at the mercy of outside elements, and it is vulnerable. A vulnerable organization may not survive. It surely will not prosper. It is ripe to become a dinosaur.

Management fads of the past several decades, whether or not they satisfied the promises made for them, all depended upon innovation for success. Reengineering asked us for radical redesign of our business processes to achieve dramatic improvements. Was this not a call for innovation? In fact, to the extent that reengineering succeeded, it was because of the innovation it inspired. Total quality management asked everyone in the enterprise to take an active role in continuous-process improvement. TQM is an enterprisewide application of kaizen, the Japanese idea of “everybody improving everything all the time.” How does this come about if not by innovation, by everybody?

Another recent management fad, quality function deployment (QFD), is a technique used for analyzing customer needs and relating them to specific actions that will satisfy those needs. It is certainly a useful methodology, but aren’t the specific actions that will satisfy those needs the product of someone’s innovation?

When an organization adopts a strategy of value stream reinvention (VSR), it seeks to identify current and potential “value streams.” The purpose of each value stream is to provide specific results for a customer (either internal or external), thus making that customer as satisfied as possible. The goal of VSR is to reinvent the value stream to meet those customer needs in the most simple and direct manner. How would one go about doing so in the absence of innovation?

Innovation matters because it is all around us. Every enterprise depends on innovation to a much greater degree than it may recognize. Success without innovation is almost inconceivable. Success over an extended period becomes impossible. The reality is that it is not enough just to survive. The vibrant organization must prosper. For this organization, innovation is not negotiable.

WHAT IS INNOVATION?

Webster’s New Unabridged Dictionary defines the noun innovation as the “introduction of new things or methods.” The same dictionary defines the verb to innovate as “to make something new or to make changes in anything established.” While this is a concise and accurate definition, it certainly fails to capture the flavor and energy of innovation as normally envisaged in business. The official definition may be bland and neutral, but when innovation is mentioned in business circles, it often takes on a reverence approaching piety and virtue.

There are many ways of defining innovation. For most people, though, innovation is something good. But is innovation always good? Are there—just maybe—some situations when innovation is counterproductive, or at least not particularly helpful? We find that occasionally innovation can be a two-edged sword, a kind of commercial version of the sword of Damocles, signifying impending disaster. For instance, take the case when implementation of an important new program is nearly complete, and someone proposes an innovative new way to achieve still better results. What if this improvement would delay implementation of the program another six months? Is this new proposal helpful? It may be innovative, but it may not be appropriate.

In every sizable organization, there are many folks who are unaware of the goals or strategies being pursued. When the goals are unclear, these folks are the first to find themselves out on a limb and out of the mainstream of directed activity. Would it not be preferable to communicate clearly as to when innovation is useful so every one of us can recognize when our ideas support corporate goals and when such ideas are most helpful? The word appropriate is a good fit here. When is an innovation appropriate and when is it inappropriate?

Introducing the concept of commercial relevance (think of it as appropriate innovation) fits our concept of applied strategy—that is, strategy harnessed to the task of focusing innovation. Frank Bacon defines invention as the solution to a problem.¹ He defines innovation as the commercially successful use of the invention. It’s an important and useful distinction, pointing out that invention is not, by itself, necessarily commercially important. Take the case at Xerox. Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) has been responsible for some of the most significant inventions of the past thirty years. For example, UNIX came from the PARC laboratories, as did the graphic user interface (GUI) that skyrocketed the Apple Lisa and Macintosh computers to stardom. The mouse, now a standard fixture on Windows computers as well as Macintoshes, is also a PARC invention. But it was Apple that brought it to market and put one on every desk. Xerox had the inventions, but it did not commercially and successfully make use of them. It invented, but it did not innovate.

As this is being written, in early 2001, there is considerable comment in the press on Xerox’s performance and future. The company has failed to impress Wall Street that it can innovate in ways that will prove sufficient to guarantee a healthy and profitable future, and its stock price is taking a beating. This icon of corporate success finds itself at an important and challenging crossroads.

The Xerox case shows that invention in itself, even brilliant invention, does not ensure commercial success. It is not enough. In the examples given above of Xerox’s inventions, none were commercialized or exploited by Xerox. Innovation, on the other hand (as Frank Bacon defines it, as the “commercially successful use of the invention”), can produce monumental commercial gain.

Because of its more humble origins, innovation can seem deceptively simple. Jacques Barzun puts it this way:

Technology, or more exactly techne, the practical arts . . . came earlier and was for a long time the foster mother of science. The working inventions of the mechanic, who fiddles to improve his tools, accumulate into large aids to science. We are not used to the reverse effect: so-called pure science finds some new principle and applied science—engineering—embodies it in a device for industry or domestic use. That is why industry devotes part of its profits to research and development, an innovation that dates only from 1890.²

As Barzun points out, organized R&D (innovaton) is relatively recent. Even what today passes for organized research still relies heavily on the tinkering and fiddling of talented individuals. With the skyrocketing costs of research today, we can and we must find ways to ensure that our efforts are relevant.

MAKING INNOVATION RELEVANT

Innovation can take place in the product, obviously, but there can be equally significant gains from innovation in promotion, sales, pricing, support services, or distribution. Developing a better way to get the product to the user can be an enormous innovation. Amazon.com began as an electronic bookstore, but Jeff Bezos saw it as an electronic bookstore with a vision and a strategy. Hence, Amazon today is much more than just an online bookstore.

Commercial relevance is realized most visibly in the direct support of the strategic goals of the organization. If it’s this simple, why do so many companies find innovation—relevant innovation—so difficult to achieve? Having a strategy to guide what is appropriate is a big help. Exactly what is appropriate is determined by three factors: (1) whether the idea supports the strategic direction, (2) the company’s current structure, and (3) whether the innovation is within the company’s capacity. Let’s look at the three factors.

The first, of course, is whether the innovative idea supports the company’s strategic direction outlined in the corporate vision. Alignment begins here. Effort that does not directly support the chosen strategic direction is wasted.

The second factor is equally important: How is your company currently structured? What are its prevailing cultural beliefs, values, and behaviors, which all determine its ability to innovate successfully? Culture is central to capabilities. Some companies (like 3M or DuPont) are organized specifically to take maximum advantage of a continuous stream of inventions. Such companies conjure the image of a marketing department perched like a hungry hawk atop the corporate fence post overlooking the mouse hole of R&D—ready to pounce on innovations as they emerge. Not all companies are able to capitalize on every opportunity that may emerge—certainly not immediately, and maybe not at all. If your company has historically been a risk-averse, plodding leader in a gentlemanly and mannered industry, it will take more than publishing new slogans and exhorting employees to be creative, and it is unlikely to happen quickly.

A word of caution is needed for companies that historically have not had the freewheeling entrepreneurial verve to capitalize on diverse ideas. Appropriateness may have a very different meaning for a conservative, methodical, risk-averse company than it does for a company more willing to accept risk like Rubbermaid. We are certainly advocates of innovation. (After all, we’re writing this book.) But just how companies find their way to innovation differs. Simply deciding to “become innovative” overnight as some pundits seem to advocate appears to us like a great way to waste money, create confusion, and probably fail miserably. Not all companies can afford the basic research approach of a DuPont. They lack the diverse and massive resources 3M can draw on. Not all companies are like 3M or Rubbermaid, geared to produce a continuous flow of new products. Not all organizations want to be like 3M or Rubbermaid—nor should they. All companies can certainly learn from these innovators, but ultimately they will have to create their own “best practices.”

We need to learn how to identify commercially relevant innovation and how to achieve it consistently. Relevant innovation is specific to each organization and each situation, and appropriate innovation is always commercially relevant. Strategic alignment provides the clothesline from which innovators try to hang their ideas. Strategic alignment provides a focus, a point of departure. But when the truly exceptional breakthrough—the radical innovation—does appear, only genuinely misguided management would ignore it. Management will be at the center of the action, as it should be.

The third requirement for determining what is appropriate is that an innovation must be within the capacity of the organization’s resources. If you can’t afford it, it’s not appropriate. (Note that alliances and joint ventures may well permit an organization to pursue innovation opportunities that may be outside the parties’ individual resource limitations.) Creating the capacity for innovation, as we will see later, is a critical management responsibility.

MANAGEMENT MATTERS

MANAGERS AT ALL levels understand that new and effective products and processes are a key to future success. They know that management matters. But the importance of good management is also recognized at the factory workstation, at the reception desk at headquarters, and at the copy center in the basement. These operational folks seldom use the latest technical jargon of management. They don’t ponder the next shareholder meeting or concern themselves with Franklin planners or stock options. But they know that management is important since they see the failures as well as the successes of management. Often, they demonstrate their feeling of disappointment by posting Dilbert cartoons on the walls or circulating humorous e-mail messages poking fun at some management faux pas. Management matters, and employees know it too.

There is a disturbing flow of material appearing today that takes a somewhat mean-spirited view of corporate management, at least where innovation is concerned. These pundits often exclaim that management is the problem. They say that management stifles innovation, and that if management would just let the people do what they already know how to do, innovation would flourish. In other words, they think that management should stop managing and that employee innovation is the answer. Can this be the proper view? Is this today’s prescription for the innovative company?

We don’t think so. A lot of faults can be placed at the doorstep of management, but we think this particular invective is unfair. Senior managers are no less human and seek no less to do a good job than any other employee. We never met a manager at any level who woke up in the morning with the thought, “I think I’ll go into the office today and make some stupid decisions.” But it’s also true that their missteps are more visible and their mistakes more consequential than those of other employees. It’s not overmanagement causing a lack of innovation. In most cases, it is the absence of any management at all. Lack of focus is a failure of management. Lack of focus causes lack of alignment, and lack of alignment surely does frustrate and inhibit innovation.

A STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE

Innovation should be a strategic objective of management. If it’s so important, it should be on the list of objectives. As with any other goal, if there is no planning or priority effort devoted to achieving that objective, it’s unlikely to happen. One could fairly argue that it’s difficult if not impossible to “plan to be creative.” It does sound like an oxymoron—precisely because managing creativity is not the same thing as planning creativity. Rather, managing creativity is providing the capacity and environment for innovation. The organization must have the capability to innovate, and this is well within the purview of management. Management is responsible for providing the resources and the environment necessary for success, and if innovation is one of those resources, then it’s the job of management, because no one else can do it.

The substance of developing a capacity for innovation is discussed in Chapter 6. Suffice it to say here that corporate strategy should address the development of this capacity for innovation, and it most effectively does so when it focuses innovation on the market and on the competitive impact of innovation. When the capacity for innovation is provided, the organization can move to the actual work at hand. The capacity for innovation occurs along one or more of three trajectories:

1.Product innovations

2.Process innovations

3.Management or organizational innovations

The innovation-capable organization is prepared to innovate as and when the situation or opportunity requires and is simultaneously able to pursue routine, small innovations and to envision big or radical acts of creativity. The capacity to innovate in process and product goes far to producing sustainable competitive advantage. But it doesn’t stop there.

Management must go on continuously, and organizational innovation must go on continuously. It is no less significant than product innovation or process innovation, and in some cases it is considerably more so. The strategically innovative organization is focused on satisfying the needs of a clearly defined and understood customer group. Thus, the strategically innovative organization is always looking to better serve its customers and actively seeks improvements in all three areas (product, process, and organization). It actively seeks to cultivate the capability to think on many levels at the same time. Make no mistake: It is focused on its goals. But like the bald eagle, it can hunt and fish equally well. Unlike the eagle, however, the truly innovative organization must do more than one thing—here, all three things—at the same time.

The great commanders of history are usually remembered for their battles and their victories. The victories ensured their place in history, but what made the victories possible was their attention to developing the capabilities necessary for victory. Training, logistics, strategy, and equipment are capabilities the commander must create before he can win—before he can fight. Given any choice at all, the great generals have always focused on developing the capacity for winning. The great manager, like the great general, is always training for the next battle. The capacity to win doesn’t always mean you will win. But without it, you are very likely destined to lose. The best executives follow the example of the great generals in continuously marshaling the necessary capabilities for success.

A ROLE FOR ALL LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT

However, innovation is not only an executive responsibility. All levels of management have an important role in achieving innovation. Individual roles differ, but all levels are necessary. Organizations that do not have alignment through the entire organization find innovation unintentionally stifled in the most unexpected places and for the most surprising reasons. Misalignment causes expensive failures and internal contention. At the very best, a lack of alignment causes frustration and distraction.

Figure 1-1 shows the cascading roles of various levels of management in achieving innovation. Each level is supportive of those above it but also exerts a specific emphasis unique to its own level. The levels shown are intended to be generic and represent the flow of roles rather than specific recommendations for organizing your company.

The challenge of managing innovation may be formidable, but for many organizations it is also urgent. Figure 1-1 reflects our strong feeling that management is an essential part of the “innovation team” and must be included—not pushed out of the way like an unused footstool. The idea of the generic manager who can manage anything in any business has proved disappointing. Managers need to know the specifics about the business they manage. Thus, executives who love their products have a distinct advantage over those who just “manage them” from a distance. Innovations are like children: They benefit from continual nurturing. Many of the key requirements for successful innovation can happen only with management assistance and approval. The executive who is always dropping by the research and development department because she is really interested in what they’re doing has a distinct advantage. And innovation will benefit because she cares.

FIGURE 1-1.THE ROLES OF ALL LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT IN ACHIEVING INNOVATION.

STRATEGY IS THE KEY ENABLER

LESS OBVIOUS, PERHAPS, is the role of strategy in creating an environment of innovation. Strategy is the root structure supporting the tree of company action—all action. If the roots are strong, the organization can weather storms of competition and grow yet stronger. In the sturdy oak, nourishment rushes up from the roots, providing what is needed for survival and vitality. That’s precisely what strategy is supposed to do for the organization. When the fundamental thinking, the essential business design, and the critical assumptions of the organization are faulty or fuzzy, meaningful activity is obscured by indecision and risk avoidance. And innovation, it seems, is one of the first casualties.

THREE KEY QUESTIONS

There are a number of fundamental questions that have a powerful impact on innovation. Three key questions top the list:

1.Developing the essential business design: What should it be?

2.Selection of target markets: Whom should we serve?

3.Selection of strategies: How should we compete?

What Should It Be?

The business design is nothing less than your vision, your perspective on the business you’ve chosen. How does the company generate revenue, create value, and provide profits? At its pithiest, most minimalist essence, this is your mission statement.

Whom Should We Serve?

Every business chooses its customers. It has that right—in fact, that obligation—to select those customer segments it wishes to serve. (We acknowledge that there are some legal limitations for some industries, particularly those pertaining to nondiscrimination, but in our view these do not detract from the point.) Why then do so many companies find it so difficult to define their precise target markets? We suggest that the answer lies generally in our instinctive inclination not to turn away any customer we think may want to buy our products or services. Some very large and sometimes successful companies are extremely vague about precisely what customers (market segments) they mean to serve. Down deep we’d all like to do everything for everybody. We would like to have everyone queuing up to pay us money.

But alas, this well-intentioned inclusiveness immediately begins to work against the clarity necessary for effective and efficient action across the organization. Somewhere, there may be a company that can do everything well for every potential customer, but we’ve yet to see one. Until we do, we’ll continue to advocate that the selection of target markets is one of the most important strategic decisions management ever makes. When the remainder of the company is unclear about whom the company is supposed to be satisfying, people will make assumptions. They will look around for patterns, and they will find them (or create them). They will “fill in the blanks” so they can do their job. It is the inevitable result that many of the assumptions, many of the perceived patterns—though well-intentioned—will be wrong.

Innovation then becomes crippled because many ideas and products will be rejected. The proponent of the idea will not understand why it is being rejected. It sounded like a great idea to her, and she probably invested a lot of psychological capital in the idea. However, when formal guidance is weak, innovators are forced to guess at what will be an acceptable idea. Many may try, but with predictable results of guessing incorrectly.

How Should We Compete?

Selection of strategies revolves around the four “Ps” first popularized by E. J. McCarthy in the 1960s. According to McCarthy, the primary tools for the execution of corporate strategy are product, price, place (distribution), and promotion. When strategy is undefined, or when it’s unclear how the company intends to compete in its target markets, people are again forced to guess at the daily decisions they need to make. One employee is competing on the basis of lowest price, the next on product availability, another on superior quality, and yet another on superior service. Each thinks he is doing the right thing, and each has some reasonable basis for thinking so. When the people making these inconsistent decisions are the sales department, the design department, or manufacturing, the outcome is always trouble.

THINKING AND DOING

Focus, alignment, clarity, purpose, and shared vision all flow directly from strategic thinking. When insufficient time is devoted to strategy, we invariably see the result in inconsistent day-to-day decisions that confuse, frustrate, and ultimately discourage even the most loyal members of the corporate family. Each of these three management decisions (business design, selection of target markets, and development of strategy) is in itself an innovative act. The executive group is creating something that was not there before. Their creativity becomes evident in the success and effectiveness of their decisions. Innovation is every bit as important in the boardroom as it is in the design department. Innovation is not just something everybody else does: It is what executives do too. At least, it is what the successful ones do.

Securing the alignment of the organization with its organizational goals and strategies is virtually impossible unless those goals and strategies are skillfully crafted. When goals and strategies are haphazard or unconvincing, or evidence shouts that they are not working in the marketplace, employees try to construct better guidelines to focus their personal work or that of their department, etc. Then, working at cross-purposes becomes the norm. There seems to be no apparent solution as people work harder, and longer, and to less effect.

As noted earlier, the process of managing innovation begins with the strategic plan. The overarching policies and strategies of the company, as indicated in the plan, establish and sustain the environment for innovation. Those few key strategic decisions will determine a great deal of whatever success is achieved by the organization. Some strategies are set out clearly in the official strategic plan and distributed for employees to see. Other strategies are only implied and thus are subtler (insofar as everyone thinks they understand what the boss wants done but may not know for sure). In either event, the official plan sets the tone for innovation within the company. Innovation always means changes in thinking and/or changes in methods. Whether the organization changes willingly or goes kicking and screaming is determined both by the stated strategies (of the company’s strategic plan) and by the unstated but implicit strategies as people think they understand them.

The “mental models” held by management have a major influence on both the strategies and the environment for innovation. Mental models are basic assumptions or “mind maps” as owned and implemented by individuals. These models are extremely powerful and go a long way to explaining individual behavior, since we are very much a product of our beliefs and our assumptions. When the mental models of management presume employees to be lazy, stupid, dishonest, or otherwise less than managers see themselves, innovation will not come easily. Neither will it come easily to an organization conservatively managing to preserve the status quo. Timidity is another enemy of innovation. The lesson here? That the manager’s strategic obligation is a serious one indeed.

THE CREATIVE PROCESS:
WHO ARE THE INNOVATORS?

THE CREATIVE ORGANIZATION enjoys the contributions of many people, many times over, and in diverse situations. It is a healthy organization, an energized organization. It is exciting to watch such a company and even more exciting to be part of such a company. Such an organization develops an unstoppable momentum that competitors find unable to resist. These are the companies that make headlines. These companies often become the icons of Main Street and the darlings of Wall Street.

But where does the creativity come from? Those companies generally thought to be “creative” have somehow learned to attract and encourage creative people. Likewise, they’ve learned ways to focus their creative talent in productive and powerful directions. These are companies that value “good thinkers” and provide an environment for these treasures to contribute their unique skills. Creative people can be found anywhere in the organization. They are not by any means limited to design, engineering, advertising, or R&D. The organization realizes the greatest benefit when everyone is and feels free to contribute creative solutions to the company’s most perplexing issues. Hence, the more candid management is about the real issues, the real goals, and the actual strategy, the more appropriate are the contributions.

The “creative department” is what comes to most people’s minds when they think of successful innovation. For simplicity, the model we introduce later implies that this is a neat, compact entity. This is often not the case. Successful innovation—commercially successful innovation—is almost never the sole offspring of some creative department (whatever that may be). Certainly, ideas, concepts, and proposals emanate from the creative departments and individuals in the company, but on their own these talented folks can only dream, create, and propose. Their creative products and ideas must be implemented, and for any sizable product or process, implementation requires approval—and therein lies the rub. Approval requires management involvement.

The creative process is therefore only one key element. The process is, of course, central, but it cannot succeed apart from the strategic and implementing functions that make commercial success possible.

PLANNING TO BE CREATIVE

How does one “plan” to be creative? In a recent book, Robinson and Stern³ report their findings that the most important creative contributions were usually the unplanned, unofficial, and unsolicited acts of individual employees. Our experience is much the same. Many of the best and most significant creative acts in corporate America are indeed unexpected. However, while it may be accurate that many powerful innovations are unexpected, it is necessary to be structured to exploit both planned and unplanned innovations. It is possible to manage creative acts by focusing effort in strategically important directions, while at the same time simultaneously permit the exploitation of those worthy unplanned and unexpected innovations as they infrequently occur.

Many companies pursue continuous improvement initiatives, including internal innovation. Is it possible that internal innovation (those creative acts that make up a good part of continuous improvement efforts) benefits most frequently from unplanned and unexpected innovation? Surely, these nonstrategic (loosely defined) innovations demand less attention from management. Certainly, they are less distracting than those exerting a powerful impact on product lines, customer selection, and corporate image. But these unexpected innovations in continuous improvement are also most powerful when the innovations support and augment well-conceived plans and strategies.

So, do companies get most of their good innovations from unsolicited and unplanned activities because that method is superior? Or do most innovations come from unplanned activities precisely because innovation is left unplanned, by a lapse of management or by default? The answer makes a big difference. Our experience seems to indicate that both propositions are true. The most creative and important ideas may well be unplanned—because no one is actively trying to plan for precisely those innovations the company needs the most.

A SYSTEM OF FOCUSED INNOVATION

WE ARE NOT prepared to abdicate control of the business to fortuitous events. It is because we’re not prepared to relinquish guidance of the business or the innovative process that we envision a model of planned/unplanned innovation like the one in Figure 1-2.

In this view we can begin to envision the process as a system. (It’s an important point, and it draws on the principles of systems thinking discussed later in Chapter 2.) Figure 1-2 includes a plan wherein management attempts to identify those competitive advantages that would provide the most desirable results—presumably, seeking a sustainable competitive advantage in the marketplace. Solving for this advantage requires creativity and innovation. But this innovation is focused effort directed at a specific goal. This activity is labeled in the figure as “creative project development.”

This development activity (which can be any creative problem-solving activity) is sanctioned and funded with the express goal of obtaining some desired result. This is simple goal-directed activity. The concepts, ideas, products, or solutions that emerge from this process must then be implemented if they’re to do any good. Once successfully implemented, the plan addresses itself to new issues. This is a planning/action loop.

But there is another loop in this seemingly organized activity. The outer loop acknowledges that good, productive ideas can arise either out of the project work, or separate (unplanned and unrelated) from it. In the figure, this unplanned activity is labeled “unexpected ideas or opportunities.” Our system shows, via this feedback loop, how these unplanned ideas are inserted into the planning and sanctioning activity. If they do not get into the management environment, these ideas will never get implemented. To get the unplanned ideas into the system for development and implementation, they must eventually be sanctioned and funded (unless they are very small). This outer loop is really a communication loop. It is the vehicle for optimizing our unplanned ideas or opportunities. This loop is how unplanned innovations connect with management. It is how ideas or innovations connect with the implementation process.

FIGURE 1-2.A SYSTEMS VIEW OF FOCUSED INNOVATION.

As noted earlier, management must be “in the loop” if anything is to get done. Going around management is ultimately counterproductive (despite those occasional examples of someone “cheating the system” and getting away with it). It is infinitely better to fix the system and thus make the process work efficiently. Having everyone trying to cheat the system is seldom much better than pandemonium.

Systems thinking and the use of models like the one in Figure 1-2 are addressed at much greater length in Chapter 2. For the moment, though, we wish only to propose that corporate innovation not be limited to a proposition of either planned or unplanned. It must be both planned and unplanned at the same time, and managed via an efficient communication loop.

ALIGNMENT AND INNOVATION

IN THE JARGON of business, the term alignment is usually used to indicate the convergence of corporate goals and strategies with the actual efforts and activities of employees. Alignment is a central requirement for stimulating consistently productive innovation in any organization. The question is, though, alignment with what? Certainly not just any old strategy or goal. Aren’t there some assumptions that must go along with effective alignment? We think so, and list four such assumptions:

1.That the goals are well founded

2.That each strategy is in fact capable of succeeding

3.That the employees can share the goals

4.That an environment of valued contribution exists

Alignment implies a certain order or consistency. Some order is necessary in all organizations. The rudiments of a shared vision do not have to mean a bureaucratic or authoritarian management style. A shared vision can be found even in organizations that bear little semblance to an ordered universe. In our usage, we simply mean a clear, considered, and powerful direction suitable to being shared by (and in fact, being shared by) most if not all employees. It is difficult, if it’s even possible, to get alignment around an ill-conceived and poorly articulated strategy. Employees are never stupid and seldom rally around such a defective strategy. To ensure employee support, we need to cast our net wide enough to make sure that we have a direction worthy of getting alignment in the first place. Once we have a good goal or strategy, it has to be sold to everyone involved. If not, the alignment discussion is wasted. Also, we want to outline specific tools that can help create clear strategies, gain alignment, generate enthusiasm, and provide a stream of innovations that are directly applicable to the business management has chosen (because only management can choose it or change it).

THE ISSUE OF IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation deserves a special place in any discussion of innovation if only for the fact that for any innovation to have commercial impact, it must be implemented and not just developed. Most executives feel that implementation is the hard part. Getting a new product, process, or method out the door requires a cluster of skills that are probably quite different from the talents most valued by the creative department. Implementation demands a great deal of discipline: Persistence, tenacity, focus, and sometimes just plain stubbornness are what actually bring the innovation to market. Most companies earn nothing on their innovations until they are brought to fruition—until they are implemented. More good ideas wither on the vine for want of successful implementation than for any other reason. Poorly conceived ideas and ill-defined innovations only make an already difficult innovation task a lot harder, maybe impossible.

Implementation most often fails for common and familiar reasons:

•Implementation concerns were not considered in the design phase—i.e., design decisions have made the innovation more difficult to implement. Ideally, design decisions should make the product or process easier to implement.

•Midcourse design changes have muddled the original vision to such a degree that coherent implementation is no longer possible.

•Management did not span the entire process. Management might have managed the “road gravel” of the process but failed to maintain the vision. In systems thinking parlance, this is the “Drifting Goals” archetype.

In our model, implementation takes on a major role. Commercial success is about getting it done and not just dreaming it up. Innovation is such an interesting and energizing topic that it is easy to omit the all-important elements of disciplined implementation.

CONTINUOUS EVOLUTION

RETURNING TO OUR case of the triceratops that opened this chapter, she had simply run out of choices. After 140 million years of carefree existence, her line was to end. She really had no choice because the opportunity to adapt to her environment was beyond her control. She could do nothing but live out her unfortunate destiny.

But at the dawn of our new millennium, the situation is a lot brighter for us. Adapting to environmental challenges is not beyond our control. No company is compelled to live out the triceratops’s unfortunate destiny. Today’s enterprise has the power at its fingertips to change and to adapt, and to innovate. We are limited only by our imagination and our creativity. Some competitors make this economic evolution look easy, but most of us discover we have to work at it. Either way, those of us who manage innovation or otherwise contribute to creative adaptation will shape a vibrant and exciting future—or we risk following the triceratops.

SUMMARY

•Innovation is how we keep one step ahead of our environment. Without it, we are always running backward to keep up. Innovation creates competitive advantage.

•There are three big ideas to keep in mind: (1) innovation matters, (2) management matters, and (3) strategy is the key enabler.

•Inappropriate innovation can be distracting. Keep your eye on the ball without losing sight of opportunity.

•Management is a key member of the innovation team. Members of management are innovators too.

•Management sets the tone for innovation, creates a fertile environment, and ensures alignment with company strategy.

•Routine and continuous innovations are easier to achieve, but less dramatic in effect.

•Radical and discontinuous innovations can be vastly more powerful, but are also more risky and more difficult.

•A systems view of innovation includes both the unplanned and the planned elements of the innovation process.

NOTES

1. Frank R. Bacon and Thomas W. Butler, Achieving Planned Innovation (New York: Free Press, 1998).

2. Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence (New York: HarperCollins, 2000).

3. Alan G. Robinson, Corporate Creativity (San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler, 1997).