I consult on the continuum between future thinking, strategy and innovation to introduce opportunities to organisations to create advantage. For current thinking check out the IdeaPort blog on this site.
It can be quite tricky to involve creative and non-linear thinkers in your organisational structure. Many people that fit in this category prefer to have wide-ranging remits that don’t fit the normal hierarchical structures. Fresh research (indeed it’s work-in-progress) from HBS supports this and sums up it up in the context of distributed innovation:
Many creative problem-solvers will not or simply cannot work effectively under standard employment or supply contracts. That is why distributed innovation in a business ecosystem is such a desirable organizational form.
A quick link to David Skilling’s excellent post today about the tensions in introducing new ideas to Governments, and the importance of doing so:
After years of observing governments, I have come to the view that one of the most costly features of policy-making is ‘faith-based policy’ in which certain policies become articles of faith and are not subject to serious scrutiny. This can lead to poor outcomes at any time, but particularly in times of disruptive change when new ideas are needed to enable governments to adapt to a changing world. It is the governments that respond flexibly to a changing world that are more likely to sustain strong performance.
This is a great article about what’s good – and what’s bad – about the TED conference. The paragraph that resonated with me the most is also the reason why I will never turn down an invitation to a Foo Camp but inevitably turn down many invitations to conferences:
We live in a world of increasingly networked knowledge. And it’s a world that allows us to appreciate what has always been true: that new ideas are never sprung, fully formed, from the heads of the inventors who articulate them, but are always — always — the result of discourse and interaction and, in the broadest sense, conversation.
I missed this article in the New York Times when it came out a couple of weeks ago, but it’s well worth a read for a view on innovation and creativity. The overall theme is that introverts and lone geniuses are often the ones that lead innovation. It also has insights about working environments that lead on from this
Privacy also makes us productive. In a fascinating study known as the Coding War Games, consultants Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister compared the work of more than 600 computer programmers at 92 companies. They found that people from the same companies performed at roughly the same level — but that there was an enormous performance gap between organizations. What distinguished programmers at the top-performing companies wasn’t greater experience or better pay. It was how much privacy, personal workspace and freedom from interruption they enjoyed. Sixty-two percent of the best performers said their workspace was sufficiently private compared with only 19 percent of the worst performers.
Leading on from this article there’s some informed commentary on the formula for innovation at Fast Company where Fabio Sergio from Frog summarises:
The idea that visionary geniuses are best-poised for radical innovation is simply misleading. Maybe Jobs or Steve Wozniak were visionary geniuses working in uninterrupted solitary isolation … when they weren’t busy working crazy-long hours with the rest of their über-talented crews in the cultural cradle of high-tech innovation.
The answer lies in harnessing positive tension. It’s an art that only a group of talented individuals have proven to be capable of mastering.
Both articles are well worth reading, and highlight the complexity around creating a culture of innovation.
The topic of serendipity and technology was raised again recently in The Atlantic, with one writer pointing out that the advent of the GPS on phones, combined with services such as Yelp, increase the filtering process that in turn lessens the chance of accidental discovery:
Everywhere you go these days, people are waving their phones around like dowsing devices, trying to find a place to eat, or a subway stop, or a bookstore. Are they finding them? Yes. My question is, what are they not finding? What serendipitous journeys are they not taking?
Ian Leslie has penned a lovely piece for Intelligent Life about serendipity, and why it matters in the digital age. As a serendipity architect it’s tempting to repost the entire piece, but I’ve pulled the highlights out below:
Google can answer almost anything you ask it, but it can’t tell you what you ought to be asking. Ethan Zuckerman, director of the Centre for Civic Media at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a long-time evangelist for the internet, points out that it doesn’t match the ability of the printed media to bring you information you didn’t know you wanted to know. He calls the front page of a newspaper a “discovery engine”: the lead story tells you something you’re almost certain to be interested in—the imminent collapse of the global economy, or Lady Gaga’s latest choice of outfit—and elsewhere on the page you learn that revolution has broken out in a country of whose existence you were barely aware. Editors with an eye for such things, what Zuckerman calls “curators”, are being superseded by “friends”—people like you, who probably already share your interests and world view—delivered by Facebook. Twitter is better at leading us to the interests of people beyond our social circle, but our tendency to associate with others who think in similar ways—what sociologists call our “value homophily”—means most of us end up with a feed that feels like an extended dinner party.
…But when everyone can get the same information in more or less the same way, it becomes harder to be original; innovation thrives on the serendipitous collision of ideas. Zuckerman told me about a speech on serendipity he recently gave to an audience of investment managers. As he started on his theme he feared he might lose their attention, but he was pleasantly surprised to find that they hung on every word. It soon became clear why. “In finance, everyone reads Bloomberg, so everyone sees the same information.” Zuckerman said. “What they’re looking for are strategies for finding inspiration from outside the information orbit.”
So what should you learn from this? Here’s my top three ways to create serendipity:
Browse the magazine rack at airports or train stations before you’re taking a journey. Pull out a couple of magazines that you’d never normally read and browse them cover to cover. Seek out articles/photos or advertisements that could have some relevance to your interests or work. You’d be surprised what can come out of this simple exercise.
Change the route you take to work each day. Look for items of interest along the way – I find that seeking novelty often sparks new ways of thinking.
Mingle at parties. Network at functions. Start conversations with anyone and everyone. My preferred technique for doing this starts with looking for the odd person out. If you’re at an unconference and everyone is wearing jeans and t-shirts, start talking to the guy who came dressed in a suit (this is based on an actual situation where I got totally drawn in to a conversation about religion 2.0). If everyone is dressed in a suit, talk to the guy in the jeans.
Booz and Co published a study back in October that’s been on my reading list for a while. It’s had an interesting but not surprising conclusion -spending more on R&D won’t drive results. The most crucial factors are strategic alignment and a culture that supports innovation.
To quote the study:
36 percent of all respondents to our survey admitted that their innovation strategy is not well aligned to their company’s overall strategy, and 47 percent said their company’s culture does not support their innovation strategy. Not surprisingly, companies saddled with both poor alignment and poor cultural support perform at a much lower level than well-aligned companies. In fact, companies with both highly aligned cultures and highly aligned innovation strategies have 30 percent higher enterprise value growth and 17 percent higher profit growth than companies with low degrees of alignment.
Heston Blumenthal apparently presented recently at the Marketing Society’s 2011 Global Leadership Conference in London with a presentation about pure creativity. In case you’re wondering who he is, Blumenthal is one of the world’s top chefs. Coverage of his presentation at the conference mentioned his insights about serendipity:
Blumenthal believes innovation more often than not comes from the places you least expect. “You need to be aware that innovation can happen on any level and ideas can come from anywhere; from seeing a leaf fall from a tree to the most cutting-edge design,” he says. “I am personally at my most creative when interacting with creative people from completely different disciplines to my own, whether that be a perfumier, a scriptwriter, a magician or an experimental psychologist.
In New Zealand the invitations have just gone out for Kiwi Foo Camp in February. As always there will be a mix of first timers and old hands attending. I’ve been very privileged to be invited to a few Foo Camps in the States and also in New Zealand, and one of the things that strikes me at every Foo is that for many first-timers the idea of running a session is daunting.
Most recently at Science Foo this year I spent time talking to two people around the bar at the hotel before the event kicked off. They were first timers, and weren’t even thinking of running sessions. However they were fascinating to talk to and I encouraged them both to run something. Both of them ended up doing so, and one person even went so far to kindly email me and thank me:
Thanks for encouraging me to give the seminar. I felt I was not perfectly prepared for the presentation although adequately prepared for the conversation as led on by excellent questions.
With that in mind I thought it was worth putting a few pointers online to encourage people to run sessions. Here’s my Ten Top Tips for first time Foo attendees:
Above all else, think about what you can run a session on before you arrive. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen people paralysed by inaction as the session board opens and they left wondering what to write.
Once you’ve got a session idea, put it online on the Foo wiki. Check back and see what comments other people make. Don’t be afraid to edit your session idea once it’s on the wiki.
Check the attendee list to see if there are any potential collaborators attending. I’ve found that people are very receptive to the idea of helping to run a session.
Don’t think that you have to have an hour of material to run a session. The best sessions I’ve seen involve someone talking for about fifteen minutes and then throwing the session open to discussion.
When you actually arrive at Foo spend some time talking to people about your session. It’s far more interesting (and fun) if you can drum up some attendees by doing little sales pitches.
When you post your session idea on the board, make sure it is catchy enough to attract attention, but not too over the top that it becomes worthy of a tabloid headline.
If you can run a session without using slides, then do so. If you really feel the need to use PowerPoint then show pictures, not bullet points (the only good use for a bullet point is to shoot the presenter).
The success of your session is not dictated by the quantity of attendees, but by the quality of the conversation.
Don’t be intimidated if people leave your session half way through. Others may join half way through. It’s not a sign of something wrong, it’s just that there’s so much on that people may be splitting their time across a number of sessions.
Here’s a great video about how a large corporation has created a nimble innovation lab that’s free from the shackles of bureaucracy that normally stifle innovation. The full story is here but watch the video first: