Makinginnovationmore

Not long ago our innovation team was asked by a client to lead an innovation project to create a new product.  As always when we are asked in by a new client, we did a quick survey.  It's important to understand what the client knows about innovation, what they have learned or attempted previously.  Innovation can be strange and new, and if other tools or methodologies are familiar or in use, it's often valuable to incorporate them into our processes if possible, rather than ignore them.

In this case we were told that Yes, the client had adopted another consulting firm's innovation methodology.  In fact when we met with the client team, they provided a binder of information on a step by step innovation process, that from the looks of things was relatively straightforward and complete.  Of course every consulting firm has its own ways of doing things, and there are factors and characteristics that will differentiate one consulting firm from another, but at the heart of the matter innovation is always about defining challenges, understanding future market needs and conditions, gathering customer insight on unmet needs or jobs to be done and generating solutions.  That's the basic "front end" in a nutshell, and no matter how you spin it or package it, all innovation programs have some flavor of these steps.

Anyway, back to the client.  As I noted, the client team pulled a binder out and showed us another consulting firm's methodology.  They presented sample deliverables.  They presented a sample workplan.  And at some point I began to wonder:  what do they need us for?  All the step by step instructions, all the information necessary to innovate was here.  Had they adopted this methodology, I asked?  The answer, as you might have guessed, was sheepish.  No, the client team responded.  The other consulting firm had built the process for them, given them "training" on the process and the client team had agreed to "take it from there".  A year later, no innovation had been completed, because no one was there to reinforce the innovation process, too many other priorities had sprung up to compete with innovation, and it seemed a bit unusual and risky.

Needless to say, I was both shocked and relieved.  Shocked that so much effort had been expended to develop a reasonable innovation program that had not been implemented.  And relieved to note that virtually none of it had had an impact on the team or company.  Which meant we could ignore it as part of our effort, much as the client team had ignored the existing materials.

Innovation in the file cabinet

While the client shall remain nameless, this is in fact a situation that occurs quite frequently.  From an innovation methodology or process point of view, there are very few companies that are truly "green fields".  Most have heard of innovation, many have purchased books or sent people to innovation training, and a fair number have partnered with one or more innovation consulting firms.  Yet far too often when we do our initial reconnaissance to determine what a client has done from an innovation perspective, all we find are old methodologies that reside in a binder, somewhere in someone's file folder or file cabinet.  Do they have innovation processes or methodologies?  Sure, if what's buried in the file cabinet counts.  No one wants to appear unprepared, but many simply haven't implemented what they have.

Why would firms pay for innovation training, advice, methodology and consulting and then shelve all of the knowledge?  There are a number of reasons, but the most important ones have to do with priorities and risk.  Steven Covey introduced the idea that managers spend time on things that are URGENT or IMPORTANT.  Innovation falls into the category of IMPORTANT.  It is important that a company create new products, or develop a new business model.  Most day to day operations fall in the category of URGENT.  It is urgent that we respond to this competitive move or that new piece of legislation.  And, as Covey noted, the URGENT always beats the IMPORTANT.

Good innovation knowledge, methodologies and training ends up on the shelf because the teams in question don't have the bandwidth, the resources, or the approval to pursue new and interesting ideas.  Heck they can barely keep up with the day to day stuff they are tasked with, much less add on new projects.  Innovation training and inspirational speeches amp up enthusiasm which is quickly overturned by business realities.

General aspiration or firm commitment

Here's what you need to know if you hope to do any innovation, at any level of the company:  is innovation a general aspiration, or a firm commitment?  Aspirations are important, but often lack the resources and investment necessary to implement.  Further, Aspirations talk about change but don't have the commitment to make the change a reality.  Innovation requires a firm commitment, from senior executives who are willing to change the status quo, and who will resource interesting challenges and projects immediately, with the best people.  Firm commitments are signaled when innovation projects get top billing, when the best people clamor to join those projects and when they are adequately resourced and regularly called on to report advancement and achievement.

You'll need to quickly work out each innovation request, to see if it is a firm commitment.  There are a few signs that can signal the breadth and depth of commitment.  First is the level and commitment of the person who demands it.  CEOs demanding innovation are a dime a dozen: they all demand innovation but don't follow up.  Executives who demand innovation and strip their best people from other activities or redirect resources and funding to innovation create a much clearer picture.  A second opportunity to demonstrate clarity is by defining an interesting and valuable scope.  Rather than simply ask for "innovation", people with true commitment ask for a new solution that's X times better than what's in the market, for a specific set of customers.  Innovation without scope is boiling the ocean.  Finally, you'll get a sense of the depth of commitment by the way activities are measured.  If no one every bothers to understand how innovation is proceeding, if there aren't frequent assessments of the effort, then you know that the effort isn't serious.

The reason so much innovation methodology, process and knowledge ends up in binder on bookshelves and file cabinets is that there's exceptionally little follow through on the part of executives. These individuals want innovation, but don't want to disrupt the status quo, so their innovation becomes aspirational rather than a firm commitment.  And when that signal is received by a designated innovation team, the materials go back on the shelf, to wait for another day when the commitment is higher.

Out of the file cabinet

The problem with innovation in the file cabinet is that it isn't being exercised.  If you have a method or process, implement it, learn it and perfect it by doing innovation.  It will be difficult and messy at first, but like any human endeavor you'll get better with more practice.  Parking the information in a file cabinet does nothing for anyone, in fact it is a waste of time and develops internal cynicism when people know they've received training or been introduced to a process they aren't encouraged to use.

Which, of course, raises the final question:  should corporate teams even try to innovate internally, or should they simply rely on external consultants to help generate ideas, or acquire other technologies or companies?  The simple answer is that doing innovation well is difficult, so perhaps we should outsource innovation.  But that leaves aside the question of integrating new ideas, technologies and products built by others into an existing portfolio of products and services.  Which can easily become a jumble of disparate solutions with no common theme, when you constantly seek to purchase ideas from the outside.  Innovation can be outsourced, but the transition of new products and services into the existing corporation can be very difficult.  With this in mind it is always better for a firm to build innovation capabilities, even if most of the work is outsourced, because when ideas originate internally there is a practical transition path to new products and services that is developed, which can help external ideas and products as well.


Getting innovation knowledge and expertise out of the file cabinet and into every day activities is important, and the importance increases daily, as new competitors enter the market and old industry conventions crumble.  Building on investments you already have or knowledge and skills already developed will be crucial for long term success.

I don't know if you've seen the movie The Big Short, and if you haven't I won't spoil it for you.  It's a good movie, and gets to the heart of the financial meltdown attributable to CDOs and sub-prime mortgages.  If you lived through the stock market issues of the last decade, and are living through what the stock market is doing right now (feels somewhat similar, no?) then you can recognize that there was a shift in perceptions or reality.  At that time, the "given" that was suddenly no longer so certain was the idea that housing prices were firm, and would always go up.

The Big Short is interesting as a movie about the financial crisis, but what I enjoyed (as an innovator) is the fact that one small hedge fund group recognized something wasn't quite right.  And rather than stand around in their offices in New York assuring themselves that the facts all lined up, they did their own research.  In this case they decided to go see for themselves whether or not the data suggesting that defaults were increasing was true.

In one of the most moving scenes in the movie, two of Steve Carrell's team go to Florida as the new home market is melting down.  They are stunned to see empty houses, even empty neighborhoods.  When they find one house that is occupied, it is a rental, and the guy living there claims to be paying rent regularly to his landlord.  Later, the two guys drive around and go into an empty house that has been abandoned.  The residents had left the mail on the counter.  The two guys go outside and see a pool, only to find an alligator in the water.  That's symbolic of nature taking the neighborhood back once it's been abandoned by people who can't pay their mortgages.

Customer Research / Ethnography

Now, the movie is illustrative of a larger point about the sub-prime meltdown.  There were signals in the data that the market for sub-prime mortgages was terrible and getting worse.  People in Wall Street and other financial services firms should have paid more attention to the data.  But anyone willing to leave NYC and go to Florida, or Nevada, or Arizona, or Southern California at the time could have interpreted what was going on. In other words, if more of the financial community had done some basic trend spotting and customer research, we might have been experienced less of a tragedy than we did.

What did it take to confirm the problems with sub-prime lending?  Riding around for a day or two in abandoned subdivisions. Driving around with a real estate agent who is very keen to move houses, that simply aren't selling.  In perhaps the most interesting instance of ethnography I've seen, Steve Carrell's character finds out that, let's call them exotic dancers, are buying homes.  During a personal encounter with an exotic dancer (keeping this PG for the kids), Steve Carrell is shocked to discover that many of these individuals have multiple mortgages, because, what could go wrong?  I've never done ethnography quite like that, but Carrell and his team discover a lot, for very little cost, by simply going and finding out.  While this seems evident, you'd be shocked at how little actual interaction with customers, in their settings and in their environments, is actually conducted.

Carrell and his crew discover that the signals in the data are true, and in fact the underlying leverage is worse than anyone in the financial markets seems to know about.  This allows them (and others) to short the market, because they've got insight on a coming crash that the majority of the market either doesn't care about or ignores.  While this isn't necessarily an innovation story, it plays out like one, because a small team of people discover something that's emerging, discover an opportunity that will arrive soon, and use interactions with customers to understand and validate the opportunity.

Lessons for Innovators
Too many times corporations are just like the Wall Street bankers and financiers portrayed in the movie. They believe that everything is OK, that existing products and services are adequate and don't need to be radically changed or modified.  All the while little signals, trends and other data contradict those assumptions, and no one goes to find out the truth.  If the movie tells us innovators anything, it is to beware of commonly shared assumptions that are too good to be true, and to go find out the truth for yourself, which is easy, and shockingly, few people actually do it.

Movie Review


As an aside, I really liked the movie, which did a good job of explaining what caused the market expansion and crash.  The pacing was good and the human side of the crash was explored as well.  It doesn't hurt that some of the arrogant financiers got taken down a peg or two.  Frankly we are still feeling the effects of that market meltdown, and housing prices are in many places just returning to pre-meltdown values.  You should see this movie, if only to get a better understanding of how interrelated all facets of the financial market are, and why you should pay more attention.

Lately I've been reading a lot of white papers, blogs and tweets about the importance of ambidexterity in corporations.  Innovators and analysts have apparently decided that trying to convince organizations to simply become more innovative is too difficult.  Innovation distracts from highly efficient day to day operations.  Therefore we innovators, and other management thinkers, create a new way to think about introducing innovation, acknowledging the importance of efficient operating models while emphasizing the importance of innovation.  Thus is born the ambidextrous organization:  one that can operate in a highly efficient manner, cranking out products and services, while at the same time operating in a highly innovative manner.

The Hands
This idea isn't really new, but it does have some importance.  The importance isn't about a duality between efficient operations and innovation capabilities, it's about doing more innovation, more regularly and more capably while sustaining the business as usual engines. There are several challenges the individuals promoting ambidexterity face, including the fact that for over 30 years organizations have built capabilities, cultures and reward systems narrowly defined around ever efficient operational processes, and have no history or experience building innovation capabilities and skills.  In the past I've referred to this as the Fiddler Crab syndrome.  If you know the Fiddler Crab you'll know that its one unique feature is that it has one enormous claw and one tiny claw.  It is unbalanced, and one of the few animals in the wild deliberately so.  Most modern corporations and the people within them are like Fiddler Crabs - evolved to have a lot of capability and focus in efficiency and short term productivity and no real capability around innovation.  So when thinkers, innovations and academics expound on the idea of ambidexterity, they must acknowledge the yawning gap in capabilities between conducting efficient operations and executing innovation.

The Head
The skill gap alone is tremendous, but there's more to this concept than simply skills.  The work of innovation is different than familiar day to day operations, requires different skills, operates on a completely different clock and requires more experimentation and divergence.  It's not simply a matter of two different hands (ambidexterity) it's a matter of two heads.  The contextual reality of innovation requires a completely different way of thinking than regular day to day operations.  Rather than narrowing choices and making the most efficient decision, innovators must expand choices and scope, examine a range of options, discover new needs.  The mental game is as compelling as the physical one.  In my experience, many top notch people who have years of successful work experience managing known, familiar and repetitive processes simply cannot work in an innovation environment.  The requirements and expansive scope are just too different for them to tolerate. They prefer the safety, reliability and conciseness of efficient operations.

The Heart
Which points us to the difference in culture, or, as I've labeled it above, heart.  Efficient operations will regularly encounter problems, which solutions like Six Sigma were invented to fix. By this I mean there are challenges in day to day operations, but those challenges require elbow grease and simple alternatives.  People rarely lose heart or throw up their hands when working on an operational issue.  Quite the opposite is true with innovation.  To innovate you've got to be able to throw yourself into a not quite fully defined problem, with limitless possibilities, unusual and qualitative information and a wide array of choices.  You will be confronted with a number of seemingly insurmountable obstacles with no easy solutions.  You'll have to work with exceptionally limited budgets.  The only people who succeed in innovation are those with passion for the problem or challenge, who put their whole heart into the solution.  There is no middle ground; you are either part of the solution or you are part of the barriers, obstacles and negativity that rejects innovation.

All, or None
What individuals, teams and companies fail to realize is that this is a definitive exercise.  You can't have some of the hands, and some of the heads, but no heart.  Good innovation requires a deep commitment from all three.  People with deep passion but no experience or skills aren't any more valuable than people with good insights but no passion.  This has relevance to how you plan your innovation, how you build skills and experience, and most importantly how you build your teams.  There must be passion on the team (the heart). There must be good thinking, expertise, willingness to explore (head) and there must be experience (the hands).  They don't necessarily need to be the same people representing each skill, and it's tough to find anyone with deep skills at all three.

Ambidextrous, but so much more

So, those talking about ambidexterity are right, but missing some of the other key factors.  We've got to balance the engagement and skills of both operational excellent and innovation, but we've also got to have the skills and experience, the willingness to explore and the passion to sustain when things get weird or tough.  Solving for ambidexterity without considering these other factors won't create more innovation, but will create more frustration and cynicism.

I'm reading a lot about "disruptive" innovation from firms that I think have a lot to protect and preserve.  When I read that, I become fairly suspicious, because I'm not sure it's possible to simultaneously protect what is "important" and disrupt at the same time, unless the disruption is taking place in a market or business adjacent to or distant from whatever the corporation is trying to protect.  Can you simultaneously protect and disrupt the same product, segment or market?  I think the answer is "no".  So what are all of these corporations disrupting?

Larger corporations are really, really good at preserving products, customers and industries. It is in their best interest to preserve as much of the status quo as possible, since their revenues and stock valuations rely on doing so.  For this reason, talk of disruption is uncomfortable, unless it refers to disrupting someone else's product, customers or industry.  But the further one gets from one's area of expertise or experience, the less capable and less qualified you are to innovate, let alone disrupt.  So what is everyone "disrupting"?  Or are we simply using a word to suggest that ongoing innovation is larger than it really is?

Leading or Following

Don't get me wrong, there is active disruption happening right now, and even the larger firms are admitting it.  Yesterday I wrote about GM's investment in Lyft, which validates a slow disruption of several important factors in the US economy.  GM has evolved from a metal bender to a finance organization and is now trying (desperately) to become part of the knowledge and sharing economy.  We can see convergence in two powerful factors - information technology and new business models - in this investment, leading to autonomous vehicles, that eventually you access when and where you need them, perhaps rather than owning them.  When GM recognizes and invests in a trend, you know it's well on its way to becoming reality.  But in reality GM isn't disrupting anything.  No, it's trying to get on board the train that is slowly but surely disrupting car ownership and car management.  GM is doing so to preserve its place in the value chain, rather than see its place eliminated or replaced by other automakers or new entrants.  Let's be careful to say that what GM is doing is investing in innovative concepts and business models, in order to preserve what GM is still today - a financing engine that happens to bend metal.

True Disrupters

I've become a fan of "Fight Club" and I think that what's true about Fight Club is true with disrupters.  The first rule of disruption is that you don't talk about disruption.  You just go and do it.  Disruption happens when someone, something or some trends create dramatic shifts in the existing order.  The leading IT companies, like Google, along with those who build ubiquitous networks (yikes, the cell companies) and others have created a platform that can be leveraged to pilot cars.  As autonomous cars drive us around, increasingly they'll do other things that disrupt other markets and jobs (transfer truckers, you are in the crosshairs).  But that's just technology replacing people.  The merger of this capability with the sharing and rental economy suggests that one car can be distributed across several people over the course of the day, driving one person to work, then picking up groceries for another and taking a third to an appointment, arriving back in time to drive the office worker home.  This capability reduces the need for cars, optimizes the use of existing cars and reduces the need to own a car.  So GM's core business is still shaky, and they will do all they can to sustain car ownership and accelerate the development of autonomous cars.  Or, they'll (and here's where the deal with Lyft comes in) sell cars or lease cars to firms that then make them available on a fractional basis to consumers.  Because ultimately GM's model is based on selling, leasing and financing a large quantity of cars.  If the "buyer" changes, they don't care.

True Disrupters aren't trying to sustain or preserve the status quo.  In fact it's the status quo they are trying to replace, reject, rebuild.  It's difficult for someone or some company with something to protect to "disrupt" their own markets, which is why Sony didn't build iTunes, and why Apple did.  Apple didn't have a stake in the revenue flow of album sales, while Sony couldn't quite wrap its head around 99 cents per song.  Apple had a lot to gain, but Sony had a lot to protect and preserve.

Not you, not me, but the man behind the tree

There's an old saying in Congress, that new taxes shouldn't affect you or me, but "the man behind the tree", in other words, someone else.  That's also true for disruption if you have a stake in the market.  Disruption should happen, but it should happen somewhere else.  Thus, financial services firms want disruption, but they want it to happen somewhere else in the value chain, not to retail banks or treasury applications.  Retailers want disruption to happen, but not to their stores, their malls, their websites.  It must happen, but somewhere else.

But the further away from core capabilities a firm tries to innovate, the less experience and knowledge it has, and the less effective it can be trying to innovate or disrupt. Which leads us back to the dilemma between being a preserver or disrupter.  If you are a preserver, you want to protect what is value to you (industries, markets, customers, products) and that's what you know best.  You certainly aren't going to disrupt your own markets or customers or business models, so you cast about for something else to disrupt.

So, for all the talk about disruption, we know two things:  first, very few firms will disrupt their core capabilities, where their knowledge and strength lies.  Second, if they try to disrupt distant markets or customers, their knowledge and experience isn't helpful, and they aren't well known in the industries they try to disrupt.  So local disruption is unlikely and distant disruption is fraught with challenges.

Is this why corporations struggle to innovate?

I think this is one really good reason why so many large corporations struggle to innovate. If they are preservers, their instinctive nature is to build, grow and preserve their markets and customers.  Disruption would be drastic, perhaps fatal.  Many ideas that they conjure up are valuable, but would impact or eventually disrupt business models, operations or customers.  This leads to more and more incremental ideas in existing and adjacent markets, and more and more haphazard innovation activities in markets and industries that they know little about.


Does this mean that preservers can't innovate?  No, but it does mean they need to establish very clear goals and expectations about what should be preserved and protected, and the amount and range of innovation in core markets and capabilities, and where and when it is right to disrupt.  They'll need to innovate and disrupt outside of their core markets with partners, because they cannot influence a distant market or customer base alone.  That means that preservers better get awfully good about identifying potential markets to disrupt, and finding the right partners to help them, something they haven't done well in the past.

There's news today that GM, that historic dinosaur of a car company, has seen the future and decided to hedge its bets.  Watching Google try to create a self-driving car, and observing the potential power of the sharing economy that Uber and Lyft have defined, and recognizing that millennials and others seem less interested in car ownership, GM has decided to place a substantial bet on Lyft.  The sound you heard in Detroit is the sound of a business model shifting, and thousands of businesses gasping in response.  Yes, it's possible a major tsunami has started, and no one is sure what things will look like when it is over.

The reigning champion

For close to 100 years, GM has had one prevailing business model:  they create cars and the American consumer acquires them.  After all it was Billy Durant who developed the idea of a model family, so that consumers could own progressively more elaborate automobiles all from the same manufacturer.  He is also responsible in part for planned obsolescence, encouraging people to continually upgrade their cars every 3-5 years.  The whole basis of GM through the 1970s and 1980s was to build more cars for more US buyers.  Then, of course, the entire US automotive industry shifted its model, from a manufacturing model to a financial model.  In the last 20 years most US manufacturers made more money on the financial aspects of the automotive industry (loans, leasing, etc) than they did on building and selling, you know, their main product.

But the financial crisis created great concern about the long term profitability and viability of that model.  So the industry is groping for a new, viable, sustainable model, just as a new generation of buyers seems less interested in car ownership, more adaptable to mass transit, and more interested in the "sharing" economy.  GM and the other manufacturers are making bets that the old days of car ownership (at least at historic rates) are over.

The new contender

What does a monolithic company based on either manufacturing or financing do when neither of those models seems particularly attractive in new market conditions?  It aligns itself with a potential business model innovator that seems more in touch with new customers and new models.  Strange to see that GM is aligned with Lyft, since it is a distant second in the marketplace to Uber.  Further, it seems strange that GM will be forced to compete to some extent with Google, in terms of the self-driving or self-navigating vehicle.  After all, GM's one real, successful information innovation is OnStar, but it hasn't been put to the full use that it could be, and GM has fallen behind Google and others in self-driving technology.

What does an innovator do when the reigning business model tumbles?  He or she starts to figure out not only what the behemoths are doing, but what the secondary and tertiary implications of the new model will be.  For example, if cars really become autonomous, we can park them in lots far from our houses and gain more living space by doing away with garages.  After all, we can simply schedule the car to pick us up (whether it's driven by Uber/Lyft or autonomously) when we want.  No longer do we need to provide a space for the car to rest in the house.

Or, we can change and expand auto maintenance and repair.  Self-driving cars can schedule their own maintenance appointments, during the day while office workers are at work, or during the evening when people no longer need transportation services.

One could easily imagine an entire new HOV lane of traffic, full of cars with no occupants driving to pick up a passenger to take them to work, or to pick up a kid from school.

The social impact

But what about the social impact of this shift?  Car companies today engage us with the idea that a car is part of your personality.  A BMW or Mercedes says something about who you are and what you appreciate.  How does the idea of a car as a social ornament translate when you no longer own a car?  Will it be more socially sophisticated to not own a car, to only Uber or Lyft?  Will that enhance social status?  And if so, what will people do with the money they save?

The shift shouldn't be a surprise

The fact that GM is making this investment may be surprising, but the conditions that drove them (ha) to this conclusion have been evident for quite some time.  Cars are under attack from a number of sources:

• Cities are congested, traffic is terrible and it's everyone else that's to blame
• Cars are expensive and constantly require fuel and maintenance
• Parking is at a premium
• Cars emit pollutants
• The vast majority of cars are used less than 10-15% per day.  The vast amount of time of a car's life it sits in a parking stall

Beyond the car itself, the model is breaking down, financially, economically and socially:

• Younger generations aren't as interested in car ownership
• Uber and Lyft are ubiquitous among the younger generations
• The companies themselves aren't certain which business model is most attractive

These and other trends have been evolving (and relatively evident) for years.  Adding the constant flow of information, ubiquitous networking and real-time analysis capabilities mean that companies like Google are fascinated by completely automating the transportation network, meaning that disruption will occur based on a competitor with different skills that suddenly become more valuable.  GM, say hello to Blockbuster, another "giant" disrupted by the internet.

Why didn't GM do this first?

Another question, relevant to GM but extendable to every company in every industry that considers itself a "leader":  why didn't you do this first?  Why didn't GM, back when it had 60% market share, innovate solutions in a range of alternatives - low cost, high quality cars that would have defeated the Japanese entry.  New ownership or drivership models (OK they did leasing).  What I still wonder is why no modern automobile manufacturer doesn't realize that none of us who own cars wants to be responsible for maintenance.  Offer us a car or service that has dealer managed regular maintenance for the life of the car, standard.  Don't make me think about whether or not the oil should be changed or the tires rotated!  Treat the car as a service rather than a discrete sales relationship.

But GM, like Sony and Tower Records (in the iTunes saga) never saw that customers were frustrated by the fact that they had to work to integrate all components of the life cycle of their products.  In fairness, some of the automotive manufacturers are beginning to move toward more sustained maintenance, but here's my ultimate dream:  fractional ownership, in which I can use a sedan during the week, a pickup or SUV on the weekends, and a sports car for that special getaway with my spouse on special occasions.  The cars could be delivered to me, properly maintained on a schedule I establish.  I don't worry about depreciation, or maintenance, or potentially even insurance, and as the cars start to drive themselves I don't have to even worry about passing the driver's test!

The canary in the coal mine?


So the question for innovators is:  Is GM the canary in the coal mine?  Are they the first major metal bender to shift to a new business model, signalling that others should begin to innovate around business models?  Does GM doing it allow others to do it?  Once a large, venerable corporation makes this kind of commitment, it appears to be either done out of panic or out of astute strategic thinking.  What will other manufacturing companies do?  More importantly, will other companies, not in the automotive sector, recognize the fact that business models are now the place to innovate, and start to innovate before their model shifts?

I'm going to reach for one of those grand unifying theory type of thought experiments today, connecting what Carl Sagan said about science with what we believe to be true about innovation.

Sagan had a wonderful way of explaining science.  I especially enjoy what has come to be called the "Baloney Detection" kit.  You can see the entire discussion of the Baloney Detection kit on the wonderful Brain Picking site (which you should visit regularly for its expansive look at a whole host of topics).  Sagan introduced his Baloney Detection kit to help people make decisions about science, but we can also use a lot of his nine tools to ask questions about innovation as well.

Sagan's nine rules, roughly stated, are:

1. Independent verification of "facts" - no secret knowledge, no opinions
2. Encourage debate from all perspectives
3. Arguments from "authorities" carry little weight.  In science there are experts but not authorities.
4. Test multiple hypothesis rather than selecting the first answer
5. Don't become overly attached to a hypothesis because it is yours
6. Quantify whatever is possible.  Vague hypothesis and qualitative reasoning are open to interpretation
7. Every link in the chain must work
8. Use Occam's Razor - the simplest answer is usually the best
9. Test your hypothesis and ensure others can validate it

What would happen if innovators adopted these rules?

Facts not opinion.  First, we'd agree to always share information openly about our ideas.  There would be no secret insight, no preferred perspective, and we'd debate ideas based on the information at hand and the ideas' merit, not on someone's secret knowledge or opinion.  Sagan would suggest that innovation should include research, to gather facts and share those facts, rather than simply based on opinion.

Debate from different perspectives. Next, innovators would work in cross-functional teams to share different perspectives about customer needs, internal capabilities and the challenges that need to be solved.

Openness to new ideas.  Innovators would finally overcome the burden of history and experience.  Too often good ideas are rejected because authority figures reject them, rather than understanding that past experience and information are subject to change and disruption.

Conceiving and testing multiple ideas.  Innovators would understand that experimenting and testing several ideas or hypothesis is important, and would resist the demands to rapidly converge around one idea.

Clearly we could go on , describing how Sagan's rules for evaluating scientific claims can also enlighten how we develop and manage ideas.  Which should suggest a couple of things to innovators and the people who manage them:

1. Innovation shares a lot of methodology with scientific inquiry, which means it can be taught, and can be managed to some degree
2.  Innovation is a discipline that can be reduced (to some extent) to a set of practices and "rules" - these are just more elastic than other practices and rules
3. Sagan's recommendations are good practices regardless of the "discovery" - whether your team is cracking the genome for a gene that causes cancer or exploring customer needs to solve consumer financial issues.  
4. Past information, experience and the figures that rest on this information (the authorities) often resist new insights and information just at the point where they become irrefutable.  Look no further than Galileo.  Innovators need to understand how to make their case effectively without judgment, and "authorities" (read managers, decision makers and executives) need to learn to look at new ideas with less prejudice and more openness.

Like many other hyped and highly anticipated phenomena, innovation has reached its saturation point, becoming a constantly used concept that simply isn't delivering as much meaning and value as has been promised.  That's not to say the hype or potential impact of innovation isn't true.  It's just that, as with any other new technology or capability, the advocacy gets ahead of the reality.  There are several reasons we should stop talking about innovation, a few of which I'll share in this post.  Note that I'm not recommending we stop doing innovative stuff, or stop building innovative skills, or stop hiring innovative people, or stop taking on uncertain but interesting innovation challenges.  All of that should still go on.  But, like the folks who love Fight Club, we should learn the first rule:  nobody talks about Fight Club.  But the reasons are very different.

First reason:  it's passe

The first reason we should stop talking about innovation is that it is passe.  Everybody knows that innovation is important, and equally everybody "knows" that it is unusual, infrequent and difficult.  Thus, the more we talk about innovation, the more it becomes a poorly defined word and concept that everyone has heard of and everyone is already "over".  We run a significant risk of weariness and worse, cynicism if we don't stop talking about it.

Second reason:  it's meaningless

"Innovation" as a word had a tremendous amount of power, once.  But it's overuse and intentional misuse has led us to the point where innovation means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.  While true innovation is complex, with many subtle differences and a range of potential outcomes, we've mostly limited it to incremental changes to existing products, while telling fairy tales about the impossible disruptive innovators like Apple, who must require some magic pixie dust to achieve those incredible innovation outcomes.  Too often corporate executives declare a new product or service "innovative" because that meets their needs, regardless if there's anything new or innovative about the offering. Thus, the word and concept has lost a lot of meaning.  You shouldn't be talking about innovation unless you can define it.

Third reason:  it's really about the customer and the outcome

Innovation is in the eye of the beholder, frequently acknowledge by purchase or acquisition.  While we in the corporate world may call something "innovative" the real measure is the product or service impact on the customer and the competitive landscape.  If customers and competitors shrug their collective shoulders at what you think is "innovative", then there's a good chance that you don't know what is innovative (see reason two).  We need to stop talking about what's innovative, and start talking about the measurable impact new products and services will have.

Fourth reason:  it becomes an ends rather than a means

Innovation is simply a tool to help you achieve outsized growth, profits and differentiation.  These need to be your targets, and innovation a capability to help you achieve these goals. Far too often, innovation becomes the ends rather than the means.  We want to demonstrate that we are innovative in activities rather than in outcomes.  The more we focus on "innovation" and the less we focus on the results, the more innovation becomes important and the more we distract from or obfuscate the specific ends and means.

What's true is that most corporations don't really care how they achieve goals like greater profitability, increased revenue and significant differentiation.  It turns out that one really effective way to achieve those goals is through innovation.  But what get's lost in the conversation is how much innovation activity contributes to real profits, revenue or differentiation success.  When we start framing our goals in this way, HOW we achieve them becomes less important.


When we stop aggrandizing the tools and start highlighting the purpose we hope to achieve, the goals we hope to reach, we'll finally put to right the balance between talking about innovation and actually accomplishing important corporate objectives and goals.