When Innovation Goes Horribly Wrong

The hot topic in many businesses today is innovation.  I haven’t met a client yet that isn’t talking about and actively searching for ways to innovate within their business.  However, there are times when innovation can actually do more harm than good, and not much is written on the failures that can result when initiatives aren’t implemented well.  While nearly every organization can benefit from increased focus on innovation, there are some common pitfalls that must be understood before you embark on a path to make innovation part of your organization’s approach.

Over the last 20+ years, I have designed and implemented a number of innovation initiatives within large organizations.  From those efforts, I’ve gained some valuable insight into how to make innovation a successful part of your enterprise, and equally important, where things can go down the tubes fast.  Here are some key points to remember:

1.  Simply declaring innovation as a focus area doesn’t deliver results.  Any effort to rekindle the spirit of creativity in your organization must be well planned and sustained consistently.

2.  Leadership is imperative – it’s non-negotiable.  If your entire leadership team isn’t committed to it, then stop now and address the detractors.  The fastest way to stifle innovation is to have a leader not “all in” with the intent and direction.

3.  Patience is key especially in established organizations whose success and culture has evolved around an industry reputation.  Don’t expect breakthrough ideas out of the gate.

4.  Consistently recognize ideas and their authors no matter how trivial or insignificant an idea may appear.

5.  Be flexible and adapt your efforts as they evolve.  Implementing a structured process for innovation is antithetical to creativity.  Innovation is often a messy, unstructured ecosystem and attempts to cram it into a structured process won’t get you to the next breakthrough.

Let me address each of these points now in further detail.

First, many executives have recognized that innovation is the spark they may need to ignite new growth.  When markets mature, competition stiffens, and customer buying behavior changes, it often creates a sense of urgency and a call to action.  Declaring that innovation is now a part (or a renewed emphasis) of your strategic intent is not likely to suddenly open the gates of creativity and unleash latent potential.  Time invested up-front in identifying areas where innovation is warranted helps create focus.  One executive I worked with for years often says he wants employees to innovate, but not while in the midst of a critical installation procedure on the shop floor.  Instead, if the employee identifies a better way to do something, he wants them to take note of it and then recommend the innovation where it can be evaluated and potentially introduced in future efforts.  Experimenting on a customer’s product where mistakes can be catastrophic is not what you’re looking for.

I’ve seen far too many instances where the executive office launches off on a new creative initiative only to have mid-level managers blow the whole thing off.  The dissonance created when leadership isn’t on the same sheet of music is the surest and fastest way to kill any initiative.  What’s more, even if the top-down pressure is intense, managers have subtle ways of blocking good ideas from bubbling up.  For example, a manager may suggest (or require) employees review their ideas with them before submitting.  Employees not wanting to expose themselves to criticism by their manager will likely chose to remain silent.  Therefore, if management is serious about innovation as a value, then they must create ways for employees to circumvent the chain of command and there must be clear accountability from top to bottom that holds managers who create barriers responsible. 

Another mistake organizations often make is in believing that once they’ve allowed and encouraged employees to be creative, a flood of great ideas will suddenly emerge as if the gates have been open and all the pent-up energy is unleashed.  Employees in organizations that historically didn’t reward and value new ideas will be reluctant at first to put their best and most treasured creativity on the table.  So don’t be surprised if the ideas you see initially are low-hanging fruit and not very significant.  The fact is, employees are testing the waters to see how serious management is about recognizing and valuing ideas.  If they see a pattern emerge where these simple ideas for improvement are ignored or diminished, you’ll never see the really big ones unless they emerge from a competitor an employee left for.  Patience is key especially in the beginning, and with patience, persistence.  Recognize and reward ideas in the beginning on a consistent basis, and the chances of finding the nuggets of tremendous success will slowly emerge.  Trust will grow when employees realize you're committed to them and willing to engage with them in the ideation process.

Any idea should be recognized.  Employees aren’t always motivated by financial rewards for their ideas.  In fact, I’ve found that innovation tournaments where prizes and cash are used as motivators are actually less successful than initiatives where recognition is the centerpiece.  Personal acknowledgement and recognition is essential.  What’s even more important is specific feedback on each idea.  If the idea has merit, provide feedback on why the idea is good and what you intend on doing with it.  If the idea could use further improvement, engage in a discovery process and help them refine it.  Finally, if the idea is not to be acted upon, explain clearly what was good about the idea and where it was weak.  Provide feedback on why the idea is not being acted upon, thank them for taking the time, and encourage them to keep bringing things forward.

Lastly, don’t fall in love with your innovation framework or approach!  Let employees shape how the approach will evolve and be open to making adjustments – be a learning organization in practice.  Rather than trying to put in place a ‘perfect’ approach from the beginning, get started with something basic and let it grow organically as employees engage.  Let the process that emerges become one that employees recognize as their own, rather than some brainchild of someone in the executive suite.  Be willing to make mistakes, admit them, adjust, and improve.  If employees see that you’re willing to keep trying, your persistence will pay off.  Let them see that your innovation initiative is itself open to innovation.  Every culture has unique attributes and what worked in one group may be a failure in another, so be flexible.

Duane Grove is founder of Connect2Action, a strategy execution specialist at the intersection of employee engagement and executive leadership, igniting innovation as a lever to accelerate your growth.  Follow Duane on Twitter @connect2action and connect with him on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Google+.  Learn more by visiting www.connect2action.com.

Get Your Organization to Behave Like a Startup - Part 4

This is the last part in the series on AC2T and how to implement it.  In this last article, I provide the key steps to implementing this innovation initiative in your organization.

Once the decision has been reached to use an AC²T to address a problem, the first step is to write the charter statement.  The true test of a strong charter statement is if a candidate solution the team may develop has the potential to substantially change the game for the company if implemented.  If a charter is likely to result in evolutionary change, then the charter is not sufficient.

Next, select the team members.  Keeping in mind the principles outlined in the previous article, ensure your team members have the capacity, skills, and confidence to address the problem with a high degree of creativity.  In most organization, AC²T members are drawn from a group of ‘high potential’ employees with a reputation for delivering results, are self-starters, and possess high motivation.

The team kick-off is an important step in the process.  Wherever possible, members of the senior executive team should be present to lend sponsorship and support to the team.  Team members are briefed on the charter and the expectations that leadership has established for their efforts.  They are informed of the resources to be provided and they are given an overview of the problem to be addressed.  It is important that the team not be provided with internal information that would be likely considered proprietary to the company.  Keep in mind that the team is to operate as a start-up.  Therefore, it is unlikely that the members would have knowledge of how the company may have attempted to address the problem.  The team can be provided information available through open sources such as client solicitation materials, but any previous alternatives considered by the company should not be discussed.

At this point, the team begins its work.  Successful AC²T efforts are constrained with respect to time and money.  Like a start-up, members have tight resources on which to draw.  Typical AC²T efforts are given 30-45 days to complete their work and given no more than 1-2 man-months of financial budget.  This forces the team to start quickly and work smart.  Such tight constraints are often counter-cultural to the way the company routinely operates and therefore forces the team into a different operating model.  Keep in mind that the executive sponsor’s role during execution is to remove obstacles and ensure the team has the resources it needs within the constraints outlined earlier.  Even if members of the team reach out to the sponsor or others for advice or affirmation, any such advice should be avoided.  It is permissible for the team to engage outside resources for information such as academia, competitors, and other industries.  This type of help would be expected in a new business start-up environment.  The team should evaluate the technology alternatives as well as business models, pricing, and other business factors that could be applied to the problem.

At the end of the team’s allotted time, they are asked to brief the executive team on their proposed solution(s).  This briefing should be structured as if the team was soliciting start-up capital.  It should clearly describe the proposed solution, discuss alternatives considered including reasons why they were/were not selected, and address implementation strategy.  This is the first time the executive team will have actively engaged with the AC²T team since its kick-off.  Executive team members should explore the team’s work with sufficient depth to begin drawing conclusions as to the viability and market attractiveness of the proposed approach.  Like a venture capital board, the executive team needs to be convinced that the solution before them has disruptive potential, could be implemented, and addresses the problem to be solved.

Once the executive team has been briefed, the proposed solution is then internally evaluated to determine if further action is warranted.  This is the point at which the proposed solution is evaluated in the context of the company and its strategy.  Also during this phase, the proposed solution is compared against the company’s own approach and comparisons are made.  In addition, the competition is brought into the picture to determine if the AC²T team’s approach could represent a highly disruptive play if implemented by a competitor.  Often during the analysis phase, the team’s solution is decomposed and selected elements of it are introduced into the company’s approach to create one or more hybrid solutions.

The final phase is where the executive team reaches a decision and initiates action.  The executive team may select the AC²T team’s solution outright, may reject it altogether, may apply insight or lessons from their approach, or may opt to use one or more hybrid solutions.  Where the AC²T developed solution is selected all or in part, it is very typical that one or more of the team members are asked to participate in the implementation phase.  A key step in this phase often overlooked is feedback to the AC²T team members.  Should their proposed solution be rejected, it’s critical that the team be briefed on the reasons for not selecting their approach.  Missing this step can have a detrimental affect on future AC²T efforts if employees believe their efforts are not valued nor deemed important.  In addition, institutional learning opportunities are lost if AC²T team efforts are not considered seriously and feedback not provided.

Duane Grove is founder of Connect2Action, a strategy execution specialist at the intersection of employee engagement and executive leadership, igniting innovation as a lever to accelerate your growth.  Follow Duane on Twitter @connect2action and connect with him on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Google+.  Learn more by visiting www.connect2action.com.

Get Your Organization to Behave Like a Startup - Part 3

In parts 1 and 2, I shared the basics of how an Actionable Collaboration and Creativity Team (AC2T) can be used as a catalyst for innovation.  In Part 3 of this 4-part series, I share the basic principles that are essential in making an AC2T effort work for you.

There are a number of critical components necessary for AC²T to generate useful results.  These components have criteria that are essential.  AC²T teams that have been chartered and adhered to these principles have regularly produced actionable ideas that are not only innovative, but are often highly competitive and disruptive.  The objective for an AC²T team is to explore alternatives a company’s own resources either didn’t identify or were unwilling to pursue.  Acting as a start-up whose objective is to disrupt and “beat” the company provides a motivating backdrop against which the team operates.  The idea is to create sufficient competitive motivation within the team to transform them from employees to owners.

The Charter

The charter statement is a clear and compelling challenge that succinctly defines the problem or topic to be addressed.  It is defined with sufficient clarity to provide direction focused on the topic to be addressed yet without too much detail that it acts as a constraint on alternative ideas.  Strong charter statements are structured as a question that evokes critical thinking.  For example:  how can we develop and deliver a new social media service that customers feel compelled to use and will actively recruit others to?  Such a statement provides direction (social media service) without stating how to meet that objective.  Simultaneously, a good charter provides a challenge for the team to reach that is compelling and sparks creativity.  From a competitive perspective, a charter statement could be structured as follows:  how do we displace the ABC company as the leading provider of widgets?  Another approach is to imagine a future state.  One team used the following approach: how do we create a factory of the future for production that is a fraction of the cost of conventional companies.  This team was challenged to imagine themselves as a group starting in their garage and envision a future where products could be produced efficiently and cheaply.  Out of that effort, an entirely new production process was envisioned and subsequently introduced into the parent company.

Bottom line:  keep charter statements simple, clear, and compelling.  The charter statement has to act as the fuel to get the team’s innovation engine ignited while keeping them focused on the problem to be solved.

Team Composition

A major impediment to innovation within established organizations is culture.  As noted above, organizations with particularly strong culture often overcome newcomers quickly.  Therefore, AC²T team members should come from early career professionals with no more than five (5) years with the organization.  If the culture is particularly overwhelming, AC²T team members should have no more than three (3) years with the company.

Diversity is another key component.  A team that is drawn from within the same product or service area as the problem to be solved is less likely to generate alternatives that are revolutionary or disruptive.  Instead, those already familiar with the product area routinely fall back upon what they already know versus exploring and testing new territory.  Effective AC²T teams often have no more than two (2) members who could be considered subject matter experts (SMEs) in the field related to the charter.  One team used a member from an application area similar to the problem but in a different industry.  That team member subsequently provided experience and creative ideas that opened alternatives that subsequently enabled the team to envision a solution by leveraging and adapting an approach from an entirely different industry.

Depending upon the size and complexity of the charter, the ideal number of team members can range from five (5) to eight (8).  Fewer team members limit the diversity and number of unique inputs.  Teams larger than 8 are more difficult to manage and have difficulty coalescing around a potential solution(s).  This is true for even larger more complex problems.  Experience has shown that teams larger than 8 result in diminishing returns because the group becomes bogged down in internal team management and less focused on the problem.

Leadership Support

There are several principles that leadership must embrace if the AC²T team is to be successful.  First, leadership must unequivocally support the effort.  The team must be viewed as an equal if not more critical group chartered with solving the problem.  Second, leadership is responsible for selecting the team members.  Therefore, they must be willing to select team members who will challenge the status quo, not those that are likely to parrot back to leadership what they ‘want’ to hear.  Third, they must provide the team with direct access to the executive team and equip them with sufficient resources to meet their objective (more on this later).  Lastly, they must provide an executive sponsor capable and empowered to support the team throughout the process.

The executive sponsor is a key component of the AC²T model and provides the means to protect the team’s efforts from being overcome by the organization’s culture.  The role of the sponsor is not to provide guidance or direction.  Instead, the sponsor is responsible for removing organizational barriers and obstacles that could limit the team’s ability to explore and experiment with alternative solutions.  The sponsor runs interference between the organization and the team, protects them from unwarranted reviews and questions, and allows the team sufficient room to function.  AC²T efforts are normally run in parallel to team member’s other responsibilities yet requires sufficient time and resources to meet their objectives.  A common problem with AC²T teams is that team member’s managers often treat their participation as an extra duty rather than part of their job and therefore provide no relief or assistance while the employee is working on the team.  It’s imperative that the sponsor addresses those issues quickly and ensures that every team member has adequate time to support the AC²T team while balancing the normal business of the organization.

Duane Grove is founder of Connect2Action, a strategy execution specialist at the intersection of employee engagement and executive leadership, igniting innovation as a lever to accelerate your growth.  Follow Duane on Twitter @connect2action and connect with him on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Google+.  Learn more by visiting www.connect2action.com.