It’s Time to Kick Ass and Hire The Innovation Linebacker

Posted on November 4, 2012 by

What makes companies successful at innovation? That is the question that people from companies who are striving to be always ask. You can read many books and indeed blogs posts that give you an array of answers.  The fact is that companies who are successful at innovation do a great many things to achieve that status. In doing so they become mature at innovation. The rest are hopefully on the path to maturity pulling together the many threads to create this success.

The good thing is that most companies and pioneers share their formulas. Some of these can be copied, others need tweaking to fit but it is quite fascinating that whilst the innovations themselves may hide the “secret sauce”, the “how” is often openly shared.  So why is it so god darn hard for the rest to innovate if these pioneers are so openly sharing? Well there are many reasons and perhaps there are no silver bullets but there is one I’m beginning to believe that we need and no successful company has managed to achieve their accomplishments without and that is the “Innovation Linebacker”

Innovation Linebacker Kicking Ass

The designation should not be confused with the CIO (Chief Innovation Officer) or any innovation title, senior or creative in origin. This is not about titles its about attitude and intent – its about fame and legacy – its about kicking ass to be successful at innovation.  I’ve met faux or cosmetic CIO’s, they are a tick box and mainly a mouthpiece to placate owners/shareholders. They do not look or act in any way shape or form as an Innovation Linebacker. Innovation Linebackers are people of principle and action.  They have real goals and targets, which they share and achieve. They do not conform to the politics of not rocking the boat or the inertia of a lethargic company culture; they strive to realise its potential, inspire and drive its ambition. They pull people together and create high performing innovation teams. They build and drive the innovation engine and tackle head-on those who are not on-board and want an easy corporate life.

But do Innovation Line-Bakers need to be the CIO? I have met Innovation Linebackers in lower positions but they are limited in being successful within their area. However their fate is predictable; if they are not promoted to be the CIO or look to recruit a CIO as part of their plan their lot becomes one of frustration and realisation of what could be as they are unable to transfer their success and vision to the wider company and they remain in their areas or breakout by transferring to a company with bigger innovation ambitions or leave to coach future Innovation Linebackers.

French discord famously led to their early exit from the 2010 World Cup

So if a company stands any chance of being successful at leveraging innovation as a formulae for corporate-wide growth then the Innovation Linebacker needs to be the CIO, anyone less and politics takes over – and politics trumps strategy. It is important to also note that the CEO equally needs to be a driver or they too could politically trump the CIO. We have all seen it in our favourite football teams when the manager falls out with the captain, and a once winning team looses form.

So where do we find these Innovation Linebackers? Where are these CIO’s with the body armour to whip companies with ambitions of growth driven by innovation? There are two main sources. Firstly, they already exist within these companies. If they are not already doing this role within a part of the company they have probably led the transformation of one or more areas successfully and have a reputation of not only being a deliver of timely results but someone who understands the bigger picture. They have all the right ingredients to be the CIO, plus they have the added advantage of already understanding the business intimately. The alternative source of course is to hire those who have already undertaken that role elsewhere. They can bring a ready-made Innovation Playbook but it will need adjusting to the new company.

And if you think I have done the analogy to death there’s one more thing to consider. Top Innovation Linebackers are now commanding huge “transfer fees”. Look at all the recent movement from some of the most admired innovative companies, who’s fame and results has been built on innovation such as Marissa Mayer. This is a huge signal that innovation is a key growth driver. It’s no longer a nice to have; it’s not something to tinker with at the edges. For it to be successful and drive growth it has to be at the core and supported unequivocally at the C-level. Companies want this so bad they are now hiring the best Innovation Linebackers and promoting their internal “hotshots” to join the C-Suite.

So welcome to a new innovation game and bring your body armour with you – things are going to get rough as these Innovation Linebackers, like Terry Tate below, tackle corporate inertia and turn their teams into successful innovators who disrupt competitors and drive new revenue streams of growth.

Posted in Innovation Leadership | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Life’s a Game: How Game Mechanics Fuel Nikes Fuelbands

Posted on July 2, 2012 by

Your alarm goes off – do you hit snooze first or do you get up and make some coffee? Do you then hit the shower or do you read the paper first and have some breakfast? Do you take the Bakerloo, Circle then Northern line or go on the Central, Piccadilly and then Northern Line?

Like life: The game with no written rules

Without realising it life is a game, we make choices; we earn points through minutes gained and then spend those earned on our life improving experiences. There are rules, we can sometimes bend or even break a few to get ahead in life.  How many of us can honestly say we haven’t left work early to get home to our families or out with our friends? But how conscious are we of these choices, do we even realise or even make deliberate choices to be better in our decisions or do we fall back on our default settings?

Recently, like a few of my friends and colleagues I’ve purchased a Nike+ FuelBand. This is an accelerometer that records your movements by counting your steps and potential calorie burn. As a device it isn’t that new or exciting but the Nike bods have added some software to turn the data the device captures into a social game.

Nike+ FuelBand

So whilst the Nike+ FuelBand like most other devices on the market tells you how much “exercise” you have accomplished for a given period they have extended the experience by awarding you points, prizes and leader boards so you can see how you perform against your friends.  It also captures your data over time and you can set yourself daily goals on the Nike Fuel points (Nikes activity currency). Like most companies today, Nike have realised that they need this to work through social media so Facebook or Twitter logins are both available – thus providing both your crowd and a marketing platform to recruit new gamers.

So how has this changed my life? Do I play the game differently? Straight off I’m in competition not only to improve myself but importantly the social element kicked in with my colleagues, friends and my wife. Actually I had to go back to the store and buy another one. I figured it was just a boy toy and this wouldn’t be of interest to my wife but within five minutes of showing it off I knew Nike had another sale.  So I have my crowd to encourage my efforts and yes the leader board works although I’m sure Nike will add micro-leader boards as more friends join and you need to break them out into groups.

Sample Nike+ FuelBand Awards

With that comes the friendly abuse and jibes from my crowd – so the peer pride pressure does keep you motivated. I have to say the personal competition at home has been key to me, although I never expected it to be used against me to take out the trash, as I “needed to earn more Fuel points”! Then there is the synchronisation time – when do you reveal to your crowd your Nike Fuel points? Constantly updating to inspire or like poker, at the end of the day to see who has won? As you set goals and achieve them you receive awards from a dancing avatar through the software itself as you hit targets, complete winning streaks, have your best ever day etc. etc. You can post and share your successes but this soon turns to fixing you on more ambitious goals as your crowd soon know how many points it takes to impress them. Setting my goals has been really good, as I now walk to work instead of taking the tube. Getting home and being short of my daily total encourages me to take a walk or even go to the gym.

So now I’m seeing more of “The Game” in my life and I’m playing to win – to be healthier and more active. Do I really need the Nike Fuel Band? No. Does it make it more fun? Yes. And really life it about having fun, being connected and making you think to change you default bad habits into good ones. If you need a bit more inspiration just see how the Fun Theory team changed peoples habits inside one day in Stockholm and try not to smile – just a little.

Posted in Game Mechanics | Leave a comment

First Things First: Strategic Selection of the First Innovation Challenge

Posted on January 25, 2012 by

One of the key design stages in the innovation challenge process is the selection of the first challenge. This strategic decision occurs during a pilot or the first phase of a new program. In both scenarios it is critical to select the right innovation challenge as companies look to gain momentum and buy-in to this new process.  With pilots, this can require further financial and/or leadership support, whilst program launches are usually looking to build a crowd and gain additional innovation challenge sponsors for their pipeline.  Consequently, a lot can ride on selecting the first innovation challenge.

Before selecting an innovation challenge it is best to take a step back and define and shape what success will look like.  Success criteria can be divided into the program/pilot and innovation challenge goals.  Defining program goals is a whole topic in itself, which I will add to the list of future posts, but it will include things like types of innovation challenges, number of challenges, awareness and adoption of the program, outcomes etc.  For a single innovation challenge, success is usually defined by a combination of three basic metrics, which are:

  • Number of ideas
  • Number of participants
  • Return of Investment (ROI)

The Best Pilot Innovation Challenge Hand

Context in defining success here is critical. If the pilot or initial innovation challenge needs to highlight lots of interest, we need to be inviting the largest audience possible at this stage. If it needs a strong and measurable ROI, we need to focus on a short-term operational innovation area of the business. Finally, if lots of ideas are required the focus should be on an innovation challenge that everyone understands and where many possible solutions can be easily shared.  Of course the one we want, especially in pilots, is the one that maximises all three metric aces.

Following on from success criteria it is important to understand how ideas will be advanced. It is great getting lots of good ideas but it is really bad not being able to do anything with them. How ideas are taken forwards will have a considerable influence on how the innovation challenge is designed, from the question asked to the review criteria. An innovation challenge should never go live without this process in place. This is a common trap in promoting a challenge that ticks all three basic metric boxes but actually has no clear path for the ideas to be implemented and results in a fishing expedition innovation challenge.  If this happens, the crowd will soon loose interest and faith in the program that is trying to be established and therefore this trap must be avoided.

Beware of Spoof Sponsors

All innovation challenges should have a sponsor. Whilst a central team may devise the process, they rarely own the outcome or have the right level of influence to promote its existence to a crowd. The sponsor is therefore critical and usually someone fairly senior, recognised and whom the crowd will positively respond towards their promotional requests. At the beginning of a program and particularly for pilots, it is good to seek out sponsors who have a maverick/entrepreneurial leadership style and are perhaps a new dynamic leader to the business. Importantly the sponsor should strategically own the innovation challenge and its outcome with the resource to support the process and implementation of the best ideas.  If they are not able to provide this clarity and support, they are unlikely to be the Sponsor for this innovation challenge. Running an innovation challenge with the wrong sponsor can lead to a variety of complications, not least finding the ideas received fail to make it through to implementation.

Imagining the Future is Highly Motivating

Selecting the challenge itself always requires context but there are some general guidelines to follow.  Firstly, the innovation challenge has to be relevant to the business. Asking for ideas that are not required is a waste of everyone’s time. Secondly, it requires a strong level of affinity with the crowd.  Challenges that capture the imagination create high levels of engagement. Thirdly, it requires broad appeal, with the topic being presented.  Asking a specialised innovation challenge to everyone creates a miss-match and can loose attention next time around.  In pilot/first innovation challenge mode it is important to provide a topic everyone understands and can contribute towards or at least match it to the invited audience.   Finally, the innovation challenge has to benefit from the on-line engagement process. This could be as obvious as the crowd dynamics but could also include change management benefits, dispersed expertise and data management. In pilot-mode we also need to ensure the benefits from economies of scale from the audience.  Pilots are not about testing this with 100 people.  For any project with an IT component, testing is important. However, an innovation challenge pilot is not really testing the technology as much as it is the people.  Ideally the crowd needs to include as many people as possible to demonstrate their full range of dynamics and behaviours in solving innovation challenges.  This will provide useful and deep insights into organisation behaviours, which will aid the designing of a fuller program. It is important to note that it can and is regularly done with smaller crowds. In these instances different processes and game mechanics are used to successfully create a valued result.

Finally, beware of stepping out with a breakthrough innovation challenge for the first engagement.  These are a passionate source of innovation challenges but require considerable time to design the engagement and resources to deliver the ideas.  In addition, they do not deliver an immediate ROI and by their very nature, the failure rate of the ideas generated is high.  Whilst most leaders desire big breakthrough innovations the truth is that they have to balance this with short-term wins. In pilot/first innovation challenge mode this needs careful consideration. Programs that deliver are funded. Successful ones are expanded.  High risks ones require this balance and/or tolerance to the long-term development cycles and failure rates. If a breakthrough innovation challenge is selected for a pilot or program launch these factors need managing.  In a program this can be balanced with a following operation innovation challenge. For a pilot, the success criteria will need adjusting and if an ROI can be calculated it will be a rough forecast at best.

Posted in Design Process, Engagement Strategy, Innovation Challenges, Sponsor | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Most Common Sponsor Pitfalls in Designing Innovation Challenges

Posted on October 16, 2011 by

Over the years I’ve had the fortune to work with some amazing people to help design innovation challenges that engage communities in their resolution. Guiding challenge sponsors and their teams diligently through the design process is an important step in the path towards a successful outcome. Whether engaging everyone in the business on how to build the future or a distributed group of experts on a critical problem, the effort to design the challenge question is a worthwhile investment for any sponsor who wants innovative answers. This might seem an obvious statement but getting sponsors and their teams to engage fully in the design process in one of the most common hurdles to overcome in executing an innovation challenge. So I thought I would share the 3 most common sponsor pitfalls that I have experienced whilst undertaking the innovation challenge designing process.

“Just Open The Idea Management Tool” – this is one of my favourites and most common scenarios presented by very senior leaders or sponsors with impending deadlines. Whilst the statement is the extreme, I do see this response in some shape or form where the challenge is usually too high-level, with little structure and overall, poorly defined. You can usually spot this scenario as the conversation with the sponsors starts with the tool, how it works, what cool web 2.0 things can be turned on, and importantly how it can be made to look pretty.

"I want this live by Monday"

Now all of these things are important design steps, however, when they become the only ones at the exclusion of any real design effort on the challenge question itself, the resulting outcome is usually weak. Typically we see are a lot of ideas out-of-scope, which are either too big, small, irrelevant to the business or not focused on its immediate needs. This is the equivalent of a meeting invite with only the subject matter completed, with no agenda or support materials to read in preparation and definitely no stated outcome. We all know what those meeting are like in comparison to those that are more diligently prepared and presented. Interestingly we have all at some point setup those subject matter only meetings, but they are either done in hurry or to a group who all know why they are being brought together. However, when it’s a important meeting, with multiple stakeholders, it requires a good construct. Innovation Challenges are the same. As you go out to the crowd you need to support them with enough information so they can understand what is required from them. It requires taking a divergent business need, such as those for new products/services, and designing a convergent construct through the innovation challenge. Through convergence we can focus the crowds’ ideas by providing information such as potential markets, technologies, consumer insights and unmet needs.

“The Silver Bullet Innovation Challenge” – Executing an innovation challenge can take considerable effort from the design preparation, corporate communication, platform implementation and finally in the capture, selection and implementation of ideas. Consequently, we run into the second scenario of getting all the ideas we need on everything at the same time. Sponsors who fall into this trap are concerned that they don’t have the time to design this more than once and they certainly don’t want the crowd spending any more effort on innovation than this one occasion. This results in a challenge question that asks, what are the new products/services and business models we should create and how can we cut costs and keep our bottom-line in check?

Solving your big hairy problems

Whilst these are all valid innovation challenges themselves, putting them together compromises the design of critical components like the idea form and review process. Of course you can combine them, I have seen it done, but it creates a compromise and typically results in a lack of precision around what is captured and selected. The selected ideas usually require a lot more work to refine them and determine their suitability for progression. In addition, the majority of ideas that do progress are those on cost and few if any new product/services/business models ones advance. This is usually for two reasons. Firstly, cost ideas are easier to implement and at the point of capture are more sufficiently developed. Secondly, although product/service/business model ideas take more resource to develop the sponsor did not have any real ambition to advance them and was more worried/curious to see if anyone had a great breakthrough idea, which if it emerged, they might fund.

“The 42 Innovation Challenge” – The final scenario is a variation of the first and refers to an innovation challenge where the sponsor is struggling to define what they want, so rather than work through the design process they leave both its interpretation and that of the answers to the crowd. To have a mystery at both ends of the investigation, as Sherlock Holmes once postulated, is too difficult a case to investigate.

“The ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything” – Douglas Adams

This usually occurs when the divergent strategic need is so broad or new to the business that any concrete areas to investigate have yet to emerge or be tacitly defined. It also occurs when the sponsor and their team just haven’t really sat down and thought it through, either because they don’t know how to begin or more commonly think they all know what it is, even when they struggle to coherently state it. It typically results in low idea numbers of poor quality that do not meet the criterion for execution. A sponsor who follows this path often concludes that only their “experts” understand them when they ask for ideas and, therefore, they rarely go back to the crowd for answers. Actually their experts usually engage with sponsors first to deeply understand their question or develop an understanding themselves before attempting to answer it. Which, interestingly the crowd can also do, but I will save that for another post.

In conclusion, it is critical to the success of innovation challenges that sponsors and their teams properly engage in the design process and don’t attempt, what initially may seem as being efficient, short-cuts to the answers. The only short-cuts they create are to poor outcomes that require additional effort post idea capture to refine and improve those collected, as they are typically not of sufficient quantity and quality to immediately take forwards.

Posted in Design Process, Innovation Challenges, Sponsor | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Creating Bigger Innovations: Building your Dragons Den for Success

Posted on September 18, 2011 by

I’ve been in the world of innovation for some years now. Most of my time has been spent with great companies who have been looking to their employees, customers and partners for ideas that can help them transform their businesses.  Capturing these ideas takes a combination of consulting, design and communication skills. Whilst this is a challenge in itself, the harder part is typically in the execution. Designing these paths to execution can sometimes be a fairly straightforward affair, as they already exist and are aligned to the ideas being collected. This is fabulous when it happens. We get great conversion rates, success stories and ROI’s to report. Sometimes these structures need to be designed to ensure the ideas are realised and not lost in a PR exercise or Change Management Initiative. Communities need their ideas treating with respect, which usually means implementing them and of course reporting back on their success.

There are many structures to take ideas forwards. These are structured formally or informally. Over time companies typically mature to formal structures to sustain their future successes and not leave them to informal chance. This has led to the emergence of four common execution models, these include:

  • Project Managed
  • Dragons Den / VC Model
  • Team
  • Individual

One of the interesting things about these models is how they are tied to the idea management engagement models and the innovation program goals of the organisations that employ them.  The three main models that have been regularly observed include:

  • Time Boxed Challenge Methodology (TBCM)
  • Continuous Improvement (CI)
  • Suggestion Box (SB)

Typically TBCM ideas are executed by a pre-assigned project management team that are assigned by the strategic sponsor of the challenge. Conversely, CI and SB ideas are executed by predefined teams in the areas of the business they impact or where possible by the individuals who raised them.  These models are fairly common in organisations that have been undertaking idea management for several years. However a new model has been emerging, along side these, as companies are looking to extract more value from their communities. This requirement has been born out of two needs. The first, is the need to extract more value from their communities. The second, has been around innovating new to world ideas.

This has resulted in a shift towards creating Dragons Den or Shark Tank (for my American cousins) processes for taking ideas that can’t be implemented by individuals or the teams created to realise their value from CI & SB engagement models, usually because they require resources beyond their capacity to access, which Dragons can. These Dragons are made up of Senior Management who have access to discretionary budgets and resources.

 

Enter the Dragons

Like their TV counterparts, they sit together on a regular basis and listen to business propositions that they can invest in.  These Dragons are looking for ideas that can either significantly improve something within their business areas or have the potential to disrupt their marketplace.  Whilst the first need is obvious, the second is often one of those things that keeps Senior Management awake at night. The fear of missing the next big idea that would add millions to their P&L or worse still, being second or third to market to a strong competitor does not bear thinking about.  Whilst SB and CI engagement models create the possibility of capturing the next big idea, the team and individual execution models typically lack the significant resources to execute them. This is why we need the Dragons Den execution model.

Usually in the early life of SB and CI engagement models a Senior Manager or CxO will perform the function of the Dragon by plucking ideas of high potential from the IDM system and executing them. However, as time goes by, the manager moves on or looses focus on performing this role, as it was only ever an informal one. So to formalise and continue its success we need to build our Dens and bring together our Dragons.

There are many pitfalls in this process and they need to be carefully managed. Dragons can sometimes be fluffy creatures (all smoke and no fire) and don’t want to invest, even if the business proposition is the best thing their business has seen in years. Ideas can also be presented too early and haven’t been matured into sufficient business proposals with Business Angel support.

There are also huge gains to be had. Firstly, those bigger ideas can be realised.  Secondly new to market, disruptive offerings don’t slip through the corporate fingers.  Like their TV counterparts, they can not only bid against each other to take on an idea they can also combine to take them forward together. Thus creating even bigger or faster returns on ideas and making sure the right Dragon takes them on. Finally, if a Dragon moves on to new pastures or wants a break from the process, a new Dragon can be found, which improves on the informal Senior Managers seasonality.

Interestingly Dragons Dens aren’t the virtue of the SB & CI engagement models. They have also emerged in the TBCM. This has seen Venture Capitalist (VC) teams in businesses sponsoring new product/service and business model challenges that look to generate significant new lines of revenue. These challenges usually take the form of Innovation Tournaments, with significant rewards, multiple engagement stages and game mechanics. But that’s another post.

Beware of Fluffy Dragons

So, Dragons Dens are a vital component of any maturing Idea Management and Innovation Program. Whether they are born from the need to stabilise the informal process, increase the value from communities or ensure the next big thing isn’t missed, they need to be designed with intent, purpose and carefully governed. It’s easy to build the process but you need Dragons with real fire in their bellies to make it a success. Don’t be fooled by Fluffy Dragons!

Posted in Execution Models | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment