 |
 |
|||
|
|||
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||
|
One of the biggest problems with innovation
in many firms is related to a classic
economics theory called the "tragedy of the
commons". This article will NOT require an
advanced degree in economics, but will
tell an interesting story and relate it to
some of the challenges in creating an
organized innovation approach.
Tragedy of the Commons The economic concept called the Tragedy of the Commons relates to the days when each small town in England had a "commons" or a shared area for grazing animals that was available to the townspeople. The Commons was jointly owned and each person could graze their animals there. Of course, since no one owned the commons, it was in each person's interest to graze as much as possible on the commons rather than on their own lands, so a useful resource for everyone quickly fell apart into demands by each townsperson for more and more grazing rights, to the extent that the commons were overgrazed and ruined. This, at least, is my interpretation. You can read more about the Tragedy of the Commons here. Note also that Aristotle defined this problem as "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it" What's sheep grazing go to do with
innovation?
Ok, so you are thinking, what's this commons tragedy got to do with innovation? The last point is the clue - "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it." Where innovation is concerned, everyone in the firm wants to participate. After all, who in your firm will claim that they are not innovative? What happens, however, is that everyone claims to be innovating, but the pressures of making the quarter, delivering the products and services and meeting customer expectations squeeze out innovation as a priority. So while everyone wants to be involved, no one is responsible and there are too many other demands on these teams. Innovation is simply too important to be left to chance. Many times you've heard "what gets measured gets managed". In this case, when everyone is innovating but no one is measured on the results, little innovation gets done effectively. What can be done to avoid a "commons tragedy"? Better definition of the innovation responsibilities and tighter evaluation and measurement of the outcomes. In many cases, we recommend a central innovation team to provide common processes and tools, and to provide visibility for ideas and oversight of the innovation capability of the firm. While many teams "can" innovate, at least one team should be measured on the innovation results. Innovation is happening now
In most businesses, innovation is happening every day, simultaneously in R&D groups, product teams and business functions. After all, if your firm isn't innovating, it's probably stagnating or even dying. The problem isn't with the innovation effort, but with the coordination, collaboration and links back to strategic intent. A centrally organized and managed innovation team doesn't remove the need and importance of innovation in the different teams within the business, but can help organize and sponsor innovation and align the outcomes to strategic needs. Tragedy Avoided
The problem with the commons tragedy is that any responsibility that is too widely distributed becomes increasingly less and less important to any specific team. While innovation can, and probably should, happen across your organization in different teams and business functions, it needs to be measured and managed in the same way that other important processes are managed. Otherwise, the result will be a lot of churning for little innovation value. |
||||
|
||||
|
||
|
What's your purpose?
In many firms we speak with, an individual or team has received the direction to "make the firm more innovative". This is a reasonable and worthwhile goal. In most cases, however, few people are able to define what this directive means in terms of budgets, resources, impact to the organization or outcomes. Being a good employee and wanting to move ahead quickly, the innovation manager plunges in and begins creating ideas and capturing them. He or she publicizes the fact that the team is generating and capturing ideas. Soon, managers and leaders within the business bring opportunities, problems and challenges that require innovative, creative thinking to solve. That's a good thing, right?
It is absolutely a great response when the innovation team is recognized as a place to think creatively and begin to create new ideas that will change the market. However, we often discover little definition or scope to the ideas that are presented, and no filter or clear set of priorities to help determine which ideas to work on, or where the innovation team's responsibilities begin and end. When this lack of definition is present, the team hops from one "good" idea to another as they are presented, generating new ideas and developing them, only to be directed to yet another topic or idea. After six months or so, the management team shows up and asks what benefit the innovation team is generating, and what they've got to show for the investment. What they have is a grab-bag of ideas that have been partially investigated, with little alignment to the strategic needs of the business. Developing a Charter
Since innovation is a word that has as many definitions as there are employees in your organization, and since there are few examples of well-defined innovation processes, we encourage our clients to define an innovation charter. This is a document that calls out the roles and responsibilities of an innovation team, and defines the scope and priorities of the team. The charter helps the team define its role and relationship to the rest of the organization - where innovation is taking place anyway - and define clearly what it will, and won't, do. The charter allows the team to define its span of influence and the priorities and types of ideas it will consider, and its role in generating, evaluating and implementing ideas. We already know this stuff This "charter" business seems relatively straightforward, but in our experience this concept trips up innovation initiatives more quickly than just about any other issue. Why? Innovation has been done in organizations as an informal, occasional activity and has never been defined or considered an ongoing activity. There are many definitions of innovation within the organization, and everyone wants to be involved. Therefore, there are no clear guidelines, expectations and roles for innovation, and left to their own devices, each function or product group will define innovation differently. Only by creating a defined innovation charter and establishing what is - and what isn't - important and what the team's role is will the team be effective. Charter Definition
The good news is that it's never too late to create a charter and impose the intent of the charter on the innovation approach. A good charter will include the following items:
With these items in place, the team can communicate its relationship and responsibilities and make better decisions about which ideas, trends or topics to pursue and which to reject. |
||
|
|
||
|
Now we reach what is probably the most
important aspect related to starting an
innovation initiative - choosing the "right"
people to define and begin the process.
Since innovation often starts out as a "bolt
on" to existing organizational structures and
processes, few people will form the
innovation team and those within the team
will need to work closely with existing teams
and processes to achieve early success. The
small team needs people with broad
capabilities who can add a lot of value
quickly, and often in a one to many
situation.
One Riot, One Ranger
My favorite story along these lines deals with a small town in Texas in the 1800s. There was a fight brewing in the town and the mayor was concerned it could breakout into a shooting war between two families. The mayor telegraphed the head of the Texas Rangers and asked for assistance. A few days later the train pulls into town and one Ranger gets off the train. The mayor, pleased that the Rangers responded, asks, "where's the rest of your men?" The Ranger replies, "one riot, one ranger". The story illustrates that a few people, appropriately applied, can make a big difference. When we look at building and staffing an innovation function, we encourage our clients to start small and identify volunteers who are genuinely excited about innovation, who can think outside the box, who can work collaboratively with others, and who understand how things get done within the business. Each of these attributes is important.
As you can see, this is a tall order for a small team. People who are excited and engaged in innovation and willing to work hard to make innovation succeed are necessary. This often means picking people more for their interest, enthusiasm and capabilities than for their seniority or position in the company. Roles
Generally speaking we see three critical roles:
Filling these roles with people who demonstrate the key attributes defined above, combined with defining a clear responsibility and charter document, will go a long way toward establishing an effective innovation initiative. |
||
|
|
|
|
If you'd like to discuss how OVO can work with you to improve your innovation strategies, ideation sessions, innovation processes or software, contact us today at our website or (919) 844-5644 x789. If you enjoyed this innovation newsletter, please pass it along to your friends. If you wish to unsubscribe, please see the link below.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Phillips
OVO
email:
jphillips@ovoinnovation.com
phone:
919-844-5644 x789
|
|
|
|||||
