Early in my career it was fair to say I had a love-hate relationship with Innovation in theory and practice. I've
come to realize it's because the small organizations I was typically part of simply lacked sufficient vision. Management espoused the benefits and sought to instill innovative thinking into the hearts and minds of all of its employees. However my managers were process driven and biased to efficiency and quick decision making. Doing anything termed as "innovative" first had to come from allowable resources, various rules, a well understood process and management's blessing to engage directly with customers. Also missing was a tolerance for risk, reliable models to experiment with solutions and sufficient time given to consider the unexpected. A typical problem solving session could be characterized by the following exchange:
Employee: We have a problem.
Manager: What's the fastest and least costly solution to the problem?
Employee: Considering solution A, B, C and D, solution A fits that criteria.
Manager: A it is then. Great! Get to it. Keep me apprised of your progress.
I think you would agree that with this simplistic approach innovative ideas were rare to emerge. The least disruptive decision was always preferred. Solution C might have been a more optimal choice over the long term even though it would not have been as quick or inexpensive as A.
When management asks for and supports this type of problem solving approach they are working against instilling a mindset conducive to innovative thinking. My source of past frustration with innovation is now obvious. It's the old "Do as I say, not as I do" phrase, in this case "Do as I say (think innovation) as long as it's the quickest and cheapest option". Hardly conducive to innovation and instilling the proper mindset.
Fortunately I've come to recognize that much of what makes for innovative thinking is an individual's personal choice. I've made it mine. So when I came across Dwayne Spradlin's article in HBR I jumped at the chance to apply the problem definition process in an innovative manner. In my case I took Dwayne's process and further innovated by applying it to a brand in my firm without Open Innovation as the final target. I realized that it would allow me to deliver value to our business and that I could package the problem definition process into something that would be understood and embraced by management. I also foresaw that it would eliminate the chance of a repeat of our past failures around innovation with this brand.
The Innocentive approach is not entirely new and readers might recognize the output of it as a "challenge statement" or "problem statement". Widely accepted innovation processes focus on the problem definition and a few put sufficient focus on ensuring it is meaningful before embarking on subsequent steps. The Innocentive method does as well, and quite successfully I might add. In my view what makes the Innocentive method so powerful is that it is focused on the use of an external resource that is not really within the span of control of the problem owner. This makes it even more potent when the targets for idea generation are internal to the firm. I believe it's fair to say Dwayne never intended to restrict the benefits of the methodology solely to open innovation environments.
Let me set the stage for my case example. One of our major blockbuster brands wanted packaging innovations. The brand recognized that packaging can be a key component to success. The problem however was that none of us understood why we were really trying to generate new ideas and what problem we would try and solve. Of course the brand colleagues were happy to have our support and resources to generate ideas. But in giving it to them for free, and quite willingly, we lost focus on the 'why'.
We used tools and generated a slew of ideas. Not surprisingly none were ever adopted or carried forward. The ideas went nowhere because we weren't innovating around the right problem definition. The business simply could not equate an innovative idea for product packaging to a problem meaningful and relevant to their needs. It's fair to say the brand could have built a business case to pursue an idea but our hap-hazard approach meant they would never have the right links to customer, benefit and value.
This has proven true in a rather surprising way. Late last year I and one other manager proposed we try again. I suggested we use the methodology from Innocentive. We formed a cross-functional team of operations and commercial colleagues and lead them through the problem definition process. Several problem definitions were created and one had staying power. This winning definition was about the end user and delivering value to the patient and brand via differentiated packaging. The immediate benefit was that we didn't have to host new idea generation events. The business elected to fund an idea that was generated previously. This was a huge win for us because it greatly accelerated the remaining activities. The older concepts and mock-ups were dusted off. The brand conducted market research to validate our problem definition and the value of the packaging idea. The business case was made and management gave the "go" to proceed with commercialization.
I would advise anyone adopting this method to problem definition to keep in mind a few learnings.
First, be comfortable diving in without being an expert on the process steps. Although I have a proven ability to be comfortable working with a new and uncertain process or method, it might not be your forte. The questions Dwayne recommends you ask for each step in the process are your guide posts. If you're still a bit overwhelmed at how to start I would advise enlisting a co-collaborator or two. Read and discuss the HBR article together. Put the process into your firm's environment and conduct a dry run. Feel free to use my powerpoint slides as a rough distillation of the process steps.
Once you are ready for your initial meetings to gather insight with your internal customers sit them down and explain the process and steps. Relate how the Innocentive method is similar to other processes they might have experience with. Most important is to have them focus on the output - the problem definitions themselves. Finally outline for them what happens after the definitions are complete and winners selected. This may then slot in to an existing process and pick up with research, review of past ideas or new idea generation events.
After you have captured insights I recommend you provide some initial direction and structure as to how you see the problems in order to get your collaborators thinking. If the process is new to you it most certainly will be to them and they may have trouble distilling insights into problem statements. You have to remain flexible on those initial problem ideas. In my case one particular problem definition I thought would be very relevant for the business was in fact true but not something the business was interested in addressing. That in itself was a positive event because it meant we wouldn't be wasting time on generating ideas just because the problem was important to me as the leader.
We also found it very beneficial for the team to spend time assessing what others have done to solve the same problems. We spent a lot of time talking about what our competition is doing, and where and how we might be able to compete. The benefit to this was to better direct limited resources. Our business and operations colleagues understood we simply could not compete in the same manner. There would be insufficient budget and time to capitalize on differentiating our product. Therefore the winning problem definition had far more chance of success than those we might have elected if less considered.
I wish you success with your use of the Innocentive method. It is a very valuable tool to have at the ready as a champion of innovation, and innovation that delivers value.
References:
Dwayne Spradlin's HBR Article
My distillation of the Innocentive Problem Definition Method
An excellent set of Innovation Resources at Innocentive's website
 |
| image courtesy of drupal.org |
Employee: We have a problem.
Manager: What's the fastest and least costly solution to the problem?
Employee: Considering solution A, B, C and D, solution A fits that criteria.
Manager: A it is then. Great! Get to it. Keep me apprised of your progress.
I think you would agree that with this simplistic approach innovative ideas were rare to emerge. The least disruptive decision was always preferred. Solution C might have been a more optimal choice over the long term even though it would not have been as quick or inexpensive as A.
When management asks for and supports this type of problem solving approach they are working against instilling a mindset conducive to innovative thinking. My source of past frustration with innovation is now obvious. It's the old "Do as I say, not as I do" phrase, in this case "Do as I say (think innovation) as long as it's the quickest and cheapest option". Hardly conducive to innovation and instilling the proper mindset.
Fortunately I've come to recognize that much of what makes for innovative thinking is an individual's personal choice. I've made it mine. So when I came across Dwayne Spradlin's article in HBR I jumped at the chance to apply the problem definition process in an innovative manner. In my case I took Dwayne's process and further innovated by applying it to a brand in my firm without Open Innovation as the final target. I realized that it would allow me to deliver value to our business and that I could package the problem definition process into something that would be understood and embraced by management. I also foresaw that it would eliminate the chance of a repeat of our past failures around innovation with this brand.
 |
| image courtesy of publicpolicy.telefonica.com |
Let me set the stage for my case example. One of our major blockbuster brands wanted packaging innovations. The brand recognized that packaging can be a key component to success. The problem however was that none of us understood why we were really trying to generate new ideas and what problem we would try and solve. Of course the brand colleagues were happy to have our support and resources to generate ideas. But in giving it to them for free, and quite willingly, we lost focus on the 'why'.
We used tools and generated a slew of ideas. Not surprisingly none were ever adopted or carried forward. The ideas went nowhere because we weren't innovating around the right problem definition. The business simply could not equate an innovative idea for product packaging to a problem meaningful and relevant to their needs. It's fair to say the brand could have built a business case to pursue an idea but our hap-hazard approach meant they would never have the right links to customer, benefit and value.
This has proven true in a rather surprising way. Late last year I and one other manager proposed we try again. I suggested we use the methodology from Innocentive. We formed a cross-functional team of operations and commercial colleagues and lead them through the problem definition process. Several problem definitions were created and one had staying power. This winning definition was about the end user and delivering value to the patient and brand via differentiated packaging. The immediate benefit was that we didn't have to host new idea generation events. The business elected to fund an idea that was generated previously. This was a huge win for us because it greatly accelerated the remaining activities. The older concepts and mock-ups were dusted off. The brand conducted market research to validate our problem definition and the value of the packaging idea. The business case was made and management gave the "go" to proceed with commercialization.
 |
| image courtesy of Paul Foreman |
I would advise anyone adopting this method to problem definition to keep in mind a few learnings.
First, be comfortable diving in without being an expert on the process steps. Although I have a proven ability to be comfortable working with a new and uncertain process or method, it might not be your forte. The questions Dwayne recommends you ask for each step in the process are your guide posts. If you're still a bit overwhelmed at how to start I would advise enlisting a co-collaborator or two. Read and discuss the HBR article together. Put the process into your firm's environment and conduct a dry run. Feel free to use my powerpoint slides as a rough distillation of the process steps.
Once you are ready for your initial meetings to gather insight with your internal customers sit them down and explain the process and steps. Relate how the Innocentive method is similar to other processes they might have experience with. Most important is to have them focus on the output - the problem definitions themselves. Finally outline for them what happens after the definitions are complete and winners selected. This may then slot in to an existing process and pick up with research, review of past ideas or new idea generation events.
After you have captured insights I recommend you provide some initial direction and structure as to how you see the problems in order to get your collaborators thinking. If the process is new to you it most certainly will be to them and they may have trouble distilling insights into problem statements. You have to remain flexible on those initial problem ideas. In my case one particular problem definition I thought would be very relevant for the business was in fact true but not something the business was interested in addressing. That in itself was a positive event because it meant we wouldn't be wasting time on generating ideas just because the problem was important to me as the leader.
We also found it very beneficial for the team to spend time assessing what others have done to solve the same problems. We spent a lot of time talking about what our competition is doing, and where and how we might be able to compete. The benefit to this was to better direct limited resources. Our business and operations colleagues understood we simply could not compete in the same manner. There would be insufficient budget and time to capitalize on differentiating our product. Therefore the winning problem definition had far more chance of success than those we might have elected if less considered.
I wish you success with your use of the Innocentive method. It is a very valuable tool to have at the ready as a champion of innovation, and innovation that delivers value.
References:
Dwayne Spradlin's HBR Article
My distillation of the Innocentive Problem Definition Method
An excellent set of Innovation Resources at Innocentive's website
No comments:
Post a Comment