As human beings, the most resisted aspect of life is change. As an organization, the most resisted aspect of “business-life” is innovation because innovation brings about change. If change and innovations [ and by innovation here I mean innovation in the organizational processes and management and not product-innovation ] are to be introduced successfully in life and in the organization, to minimize the resistance, the most logical thing to do would be to introduce it step-by-step and slowly.

But contrast that with someone trying to quit an addiction [ for example ]. For them each day without the addictive substance is a small victory and a huge change as compared to their previously addiction-filled life. There is debate whether it is better to quit smoking in one go or to start reducing the intake one cigarette at a time. I personally believe that it is better to completely cut out the cigarette intake – the first week/month might be full of tough withdrawal symptoms but the problem is more likely to be cured. But what if I switch the addiction from smoking to drugs? Quitting drugs overnight is not only not recommended, specialized care is also needed for people addicted to various kinds of drugs.

Depending on the kind of innovation that an organization is going in for, they could either do it by themselves or they could hire someone to work with them. It could either be picking a thorn out of the organization’s foot or it could require a sophisticated heart and brain surgery. Either ways, it’s better to have help and professional help at that.

Since the subject of Innovation is extremely subjective and no two cases are the same, a great contribution to the growth of Innovation Practice would be documented case studies detailing the peculiarities of each case.

“Basically, everyone said we were crazy,” recalls Zeitz (CEO of Puma). “But if you want to change the industry and do something completely new and innovate, research is a bad tool because all you will get fed back is perception today and not tomorrow.”

“I always describe working for Puma as, ‘They give you all the rope in the world to hang yourself with,’” chuckles Bertone (Brand Director of Puma). “Your job? Don’t hang yourself.”

Paula Scher : When you’re feeling stale, she says, the best thing you can do to shake things up is to “look at what you’ve been doing for the past five years–and stop. The thing that’s most to be feared is doing the same thing over and over again.”

Most organizations, she says, rely on a process of checks and balances to ensure that the design adheres to some particular corporate strategy–that’s the language MBAs understand. Trouble is, graphic design is inherently subjective. Who can say that one font is quantifiably better than another, or that one shade of Pantone green will lead inevitably to the destruction of your brand? Without a passionate advocate, a strong initial design may be nibbled away by bureaucrats, each eager to prove his worth with a tweak here and a nip there. Scher’s ability to persuade, she realized, rested on two things: “I would have to be perceived, first, as an absolute authority, and second, as the most powerful person to approach about design.

The above from the latest version of FastCompany articles (1) on Puma, (2) on Paula Scher and (3) on Ziba Design.

This is with reference to an article on the Forbes.com website.

The article starts with:

More than half of the money spent on innovation is wasted. At least, that’s the claim author and management consultant Geoffrey Moore makes in his book, Dealing With Darwin: How Great Companies Innovate at Every Phase of Their Evolution.

The next paragraph puts the article more in perspective:

If the corporate world has a Holy Grail, it’s innovation. Unfortunately, much of the current effort and expense isn’t fully focused, says Moore. Instead of concentrating on a few bold ideas that could revolutionize their companies, most firms put their resources in too many places, often creating product enhancements that don’t actually enhance the bottom line.

So they’re talking about specifically product innovation in companies? But innovation doesn’t mean only getting ideas about products to the surface, it also means investing in resources that allow employees and the company to grow because of ideas related to the growth of the company – whether that’s related to product development or not is a different issue. I would say that money spent to just bring awareness about innovation would be money extremely well spent.

The article also goes into talk briefly about “outsourcing innovation”, which seems like a much debated topic currently.

via InnovationTools Weblog.

There’s an e-book on the subject innovation available for download from InnovationLabs. The book will be available as a hard cover later in the year, but is available for download as a PDF right now. This is the website for the book and this is the download page.

Authored by partner Langdon Morris, this new book promises to teach executives how to develop an organizational culture that enables firms to produce innovation consistently over time.

User Innovation

excerpted from HBS Working Knowledge

User innovations occur when customers of a product improve on that product with their own designs.

Baldwin and her fellow researchers wanted to better understand this path from user innovation to commercial product. What role do user communities play in this process? Are “user-manufacturers” —users who turn their improvements into commercial products—usually industry leaders? How competitive are existing, well-capitalized companies when they compete against user-manufacturers? Although there have been a number of studies on user innovation, little if any work has been done on the commercialization of user innovations, the authors believe.

The research can be found in their working paper How User Innovations Become Commercial Products: A Theoretical Investigation and Case Study

I’m interested in how designs are created and then turned into real things. Many management scholars and economists fall into the habit of thinking that innovation is something that firms uniquely do in order to make money. But Eric von Hippel and his colleagues have shown that many product innovations originate with users. This makes sense when you think about it—users are the direct beneficiaries of better products. And it’s users’ willingness to pay for better products that makes innovation profitable for firms.

The research has been conducted by Harvard Business School professor Carliss Baldwin and her colleagues Christoph Hienerth and Eric von Hippel.

The HBS Working Knowledge recently published an article on The Accidental Innovator. The article starts with:

Companies spend many hundreds of billions of dollars on R&D each year, but the microwave oven was conceived from a melted candy bar, saccharin from an accidental chemical spill, and the Daguerre photo process via a shattered thermometer. Accidents happen—and we’re all better off because they do.

And robert Austin goes on to say that:

Actually, though, I would not really label this “accidental innovation.” The innovation itself can’t really be said to be “accidental,” even though it involves accident. It takes a considerable capability to see the value in an accident, and to build upon it to create even more value.

To the question:

Is there a way innovators can encourage good accidents? In other words, is there anything we can control to foster this process?

Robert Austin replies:

Great question. Artists think they develop a talent for causing good accidents. Equally or perhaps even more important, they believe they cultivate an ability to notice the value in interesting accidents. This is a non-trivial capability. Pasteur called it the “prepared mind.” There’s an interesting analogy to evolutionary models of creativity here. In 1960, a guy named [Donald] Campbell proposed that we think of creativity as “Random variation + Selective Retention.” That is, we need two processes, one to generate things we can’t think of in advance, and another to figure out which of the things we generate are valuable and are worth keeping and building upon. In science, the arts, and other creative activities, the ability to know what to throw away and what to keep seems to arise from experience, from study, from command of fundamentals, and—interestingly—from being a bit skeptical of preset intentions and plans that commit you too firmly to the endpoints you can envision in advance. Knowing too clearly where you are going, focusing too hard on a predefined objective, can cause you to miss value that might lie in a different direction.

It’s a fascinating article – well worth reading in completion.