clair075

Yesterday I wrote a post about the need for executives to eliminate the "unknowns" when they want their teams to innovate.  If we call on people to improve their day to day routines, there are few unknowns.  They simply need to work more efficiently on the activities and processes that are familiar to them.  But when we call on people to innovate, there are a host of unknowns and uncertainties.  For example:  how much should we invest?  How do we gain the skills?  How do we prioritize existing projects and new innovation work?  How much risk and uncertainty will be tolerated?  These and other unknowns will haunt the team, and unless they are resolved quickly and effectively by a manager or executive, the teams will resolve them by reverting to existing norms and past experiences. Perhaps one of the simplest, and yet most important unknown to address is a definition of innovation.  We at OVO often demand that our clients develop a consis...

I'm sure the formula existed long before Donald Rumsfeld pronounced it, but every business faces knowns and unknowns.  We face the things we know, or think we know, about our business, the environment, the economy and customers.  Worst, we face things we don't know, unknowns about the future, consumer demand, new competitors and so forth.  What executives need to understand is just how difficult these known and unknown "unknowns" are when we talk about innovation. Innovation - A theme, a mantra or a capability For example, I think it's important to understand how individual employees interpret what they hear when an executive talks about innovation.  I think most employees pay attention to they things they know and are comfortable with, and take a "wait and see" approach about things that are unknown or unfamiliar.  Thus, when an executive talks about innovation, for many it is an unknown, and the first judgement that many must make is whether or not it ...

I rise today to praise Innovation Leader and Innosight on their publication of the 2015 Innovation Benchmarking Report.  I've only had the chance to read the synopsis, which is available on Slideshare , but it seems like an well-considered report, and I'm sure it's full of great analysis and observations.  The only real head scratcher, from my perspective, is what we are supposed to take away from the research.  After all, through all of the great graphs and parsing of the quotes and conversations, we are left with the conclusion that a) most corporations are at a relatively nascent state when it comes to innovation capability and b) a lot more work is needed to build these capabilities and sustain innovation as a competence.  Even corporations with long time commitments to innovation find it difficult to sustain an innovation team or capability.  The reporting is fantastic.  The real question is:  why is it still this way?  Will it always be this...

I've had this kind of Venn Diagram rattling around in my head for a while, because the question keeps coming up over and over. Why can't corporations innovate like entrepreneurs?  And, conversely, what do corporations have that sustain them and that entrepreneurs want to copy?  If we could document and understand both the overlapping characteristics and the differences, then perhaps we could illustrate what they can do for each other, and what that could mean for innovation. This is admittedly inexact science.  I started out by asking myself what were the issues, characteristics or features that enabled or blocked innovation for entrepreneurs and corporations. Here is my thinking - feel free to send me your comments or what I may have missed: Entrepreneurs What "aren't barriers" Not risk Not commitment Not passion Not focus Not ideas Not existing infrastructure or business models Not prioritization What "are barriers" Poor understanding of customer need...

One of my favorite sort of snarky comments almost always arises when we are asked about our consulting fees and rates.  We pride ourselves on delivering great value for the price, and frankly we aren't necessarily cheap.  But then again, as the saying goes, very few people open up the Yellow Pages (showing my age here) and search for "Cheap Brain surgeon".  No, when it comes to important medical procedures, most people are looking for who has the best skills and experience, not who has the lowest prices. But this isn't a post about innovation consulting pricing, rather it's a post about why you need innovation expertise to "do" innovation effectively.  And no, I'm not necessarily making a claim that you have to have innovation consultants helping you in order to succeed.  But what you do need is an experienced innovation guide. A fishing guide as an analogy for innovation consultant To place this in a context, let me use an analogy.  This summer I to...

What happens when the largest, most cataclysmic change forces known to business collide with embedded, rigid business structures and models?  Which side wins, the irresistible force or the immovable object?  In my post today, I'm going to answer this age-old philosophical question.  Innovation and change destroy complacent, unchanging business structures and models.  Every time.  Every where.  In every market. It sounds a bit over the top to argue that everything we know is changing, and many models and structures will soon crumble from the onslaught of new emerging demands, capabilities and technologies, but in short that's what's going to happen, and is already happening.  Product life cycles are collapsing - I was recently in a conference where a camera manufacturer estimated the average shelf life for a new camera was between 3 and 6 months, or less than half the product development cycle time!  For years we've talked about the increasing pace...