Innovation through Social Networking: Implementing Idea Networks

At Launch we have always considered innovation a social function. Ideas are shared, critiqued, built upon and realized through the interaction and collaboration of individuals. Often organizations bring people together to share insights, brainstorm ideas and delve into deeper concept development and implementation planning and work. At Launch we have facilitated Market Sensing activities to gain new insights into customer needs and new business opportunities, Innovation Summits where groups share these insights and brainstorm ideas for new products, services and business models, Design Bursts to further develop concepts from selected ideas, and Deep Dives where concepts are realized and commercialization plans developed.

But these activities are episodic; they take place at a pre-determined time and place. This type of episodic activity is essential but not sufficient to develop a sustainable innovation capability and culture. Interactions between individuals are ongoing and a natural aspect of work in the most innovative companies and at Launch we have added to our work the concept to Social Networking to support ongoing interaction between individuals focused on idea generation and development; a phenomenon we have termed “Idea Networks”. We have found that Idea Networks are supported through Social Networking in three ways; individual employees meeting face to face, individual employees meeting virtually, and individual employees meeting with individuals from outside the company meeting face to face and virtually.

Let’s describe how some companies have harnessed these three forms of Idea Networking.

Bringing individual employees together outside of scheduled meetings and events happens regardless of what we do. The image of the “water cooler” as a point of what we call “coincidental interaction” is an image that easily comes to mind. Employee A goes to get a cup of water and encounters Employee B and while hydrating discuss a potential new product idea for some time and then return to their work spaces. The idea germinates and the two agree that at the next staff meeting they will present the idea for consideration.

The water cooler as point of Idea Networking is great, but what if we increased the chances for coincidental interactions and made these interactions a main stay in our company’s innovation process? Take the example of Borg Warner http://www.bwauto.com who when they built there state of the art Power Train Technology and Design Center in Auburn Hills, Michigan, they built community kitchens at the end of each floor that became inviting spaces for individuals to make a coffee, prepare a meal and interact with colleagues. Or the example of Printpack Corporation http://www.printpack.com/ where each floor of their new headquarters and innovation complex has a “Town Center” complete with Café, tables and comfortable lounge areas for people to interact, which is an expected part of work, collaboration and idea generation.

Probably the best example for bringing individuals together specifically for Idea Networking is BMW’s Idea Cafe in their design and technical innovation Zentrum (Center) in Munich, Germany www.bmwgroup.com . At the BMW Idea Café you can grab a meal, a coffee or beer and interact with individuals from the various technical and design areas. But to use the Idea Café means you are committing to collaboration. It is expected that you will work on an opportunity or issue while you are there. In fact, around the room are screens with questions, thoughts and ideas to which you are expected to add your two cents. The walls are electronic and your input can be “penned” directly on the walls. The content of the walls can be seen at any workstation in the center, and the questions, thoughts and ideas can be entered from any workstation in the center allowing for an idea “give and take” to occur on an ongoing basis.

This leads us then from face to face interactions to more virtual forms of Idea Networking. Many companies have implemented software to support idea exchange and development, but few have actually taken the precepts of Social Networking into consideration. Most often these software applications are implemented to solicit ideas and allow individuals to share ideas on-line through some sort of portal. These ideas are then collected and a team of people sort through, prioritize and assign actions to the better ideas.

In Social Networking the precept would be that individuals, not only the company management, know which ideas are the most needed (eliminating the need for “idea solicitation”) and these individuals are also the best to generate and select ideas to be further developed. The key is to create the Social Networking platform that allows for this more organic and less directed approach. The team responsible for innovation and new business development would monitor conversations for new ideas, subtly interject thoughts to stimulate idea generation and to quickly move strong ideas to action.

An example of this approach to Idea Networking is being used in the company Hot Topic, a retail chain of 690 stores for teens in all 50 states http://www.hottopic.com/ . On the company’s internal Social Networking site 6000 employees share data and create ideas. The site was custom developed by Socialcast http://www.socialcast.com/, a company specializing in developing Social Networks for companies. eWeek magazine has said “Socialcast is like a secure Twitter for the enterprise.”

Finally the third form of enterprise Social Networking for ideas has employees interacting with individuals and institutions outside the company. This usually is a portal on the company’s website that invites non-employees to interact on topics of interest and concern to the company. In this approach companies tend to be very careful with what can and cannot be shared by employees, and the companies also tend to be very explicit about expectations and limitations of the interactions.

Take for instance Choice Hotels http://www.choicehotels.com/ use of IdeaScale. “In the competitive world of hospitality lodging, it’s not just enough to simply solicit customer feedback — there needs to be a mechanism to turn that feedback into real business intelligence that can be quickly incorporated into our various properties,” said John Thompson, Director of Hotel Performance Training for Choice Hotels. Vivek Bhaskaran, CEO and Founder of Survey Analytics, the company that developed IdeaScale http://www.ideascale.com/ , puts it this way, “Our goal with IdeaScale is to help facilitate an authentic conversation between companies and their most important constituency - their customers,” says No company can succeed in the long term without actively listening to what their customers want and now with IdeaScale, any company can put the power of real-time feedback to work for them.”

Another classic example for Idea Networking outside the company walls is BMW’s Virtual Innovation Agency or VIA, a portal that solicits and interacts with selected ideas. http://www.bmwgroup.com/via . Via has been intricately constructed to ensure ideas of relevance to BMW’s business strategy are selected through a series of screening and IP protection (both for BMW and individuals from the outside) filters.

So there are a variety of approaches to using Social Networking to create a powerful Idea Network. The key is to start by setting your technology strategy to best support your business objectives. After this, a few considerations are essential.

Do you have specific business growth targets/areas you see a form of Social Networking supporting?
Have you mapped your Idea Network, or the individuals and institutions you might want to support with Social Networking?
Have you determined if your Idea Network should include just internal employees or should it include individuals external to your company as well?
If the network you want to create includes externals, can you protect sensitive information and IP flowing to and from the network?
Do you have the innovation management capability to monitor the Idea Network you create to ensure you can “manage” the conversation and to ensure top ideas get the attention they need?

All in all, the technology exists to build powerful Idea Networks; the only thing holding you back is some planning and the will to try something very new! And, as usual, let me know thoughts, ideas and experiences.

Brain Dominance and Innovation

Years ago I was immersed in thinking styles and brain dominance theory and practice, in particular the work of Ned Herman, Bernice McCarthy and Betty Edwards, and I have applied these concepts in my work for thirty years. The basic theory is that people have different thinking styles, often simplified to a “Right Brain-Left Brain” distinction, with Right Brainers being more intuitive in their thinking and Left Brainers being more logical in their thinking. There are many research reports and resources available on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function. In fact, various on-line tests exist to determine your preferred thinking style. You can do a quick analysis at http://www.launchinstitute.com/content/view/158/32/ .

The application of this information is critically important in the management of innovation. Have you ever worked on an innovation assignment with a team and experienced the gnawing feeling your ideas were just not good enough? Worse than that, you had to submit the ideas you had come up with knowing they could have been better. If so, it is quite possible you and your team were not operating with what I call Cognitive Agility. Where Launch Institute has used methods related to Cognitive Agility, we have seen much stronger individual and team results and more “Strategic” or game chaninging innovations. These innovations were inspired by uncommon connections and were enabled by high levels of mental flexibility, openness, and vigilance; the core elements of Cognitive Agility.

Three things are required in the application of methods to stimulate Cognitive Agility: 1) A basic understanding of the theories of brain dominance and thinking styles, 2) an appreciation of one’s own personal Cognitive Agility Profile, and 3) the dynamics of intersections (teams) of Cognitive Agility Profiles.

A case in point is a recent small team (18 people) innovation session Launch facilitated. The focus was on a new technology for the Department of Defense (DoD) and the participants were DARPA program planners, DoD engineers and others. Prior to the session each team member was given a set of readings (research reports and case studies) related to Cognitive Agility. They were also asked to use the Launch “Cognitive Agility Profiler” tool to document their personal degree of Cognitive Agility which they then submitted prior to the session.

Launch developed individual and team profiles. It was determined the individuals in the group were predominantly left-brained and highly analytical yet flexible in this thinking style as well as highly vigilant but they would not be open to other thinking styles or more intuitive approaches to finding solutions. Based on the goal of the session (a breakthrough in technology) it was determined that a better “mix” of styles would be necessary and session activities would need to be designed to ensure a higher level of Cognitive Agility was achieved. So we brought in a set of “Cognitive Ringers” to create a more balanced team profile.

The session resulted in four technologies that facilitated the desired breakthrough idea which is now being prototyped. Almost every participant asked for Launch to create profiles for their regular work groups to achieve better understanding of each other and, when this is applied, better work results.

Feel free to download the assessment above. Pass it around and enter the “Brain Dominance” discussion with your team. You will achieve new insights that will lead to bigger and better innovation results!

Manage Innovation From Your Value Fulcrum

A recent article appearing in Accenture’s “Outlook” series (Outlook How to Capture the Essence of Innovation:) suggests Innovation Management should be directed by the organization responsible for the learning and knowledge management function through an “innovation network”. This network is meant to connect the nodes of knowledge in the organization leading to collaborative insight and ideation.

At Launch, we are strong believers in collaborative innovation structures and the use of core institutional knowledge as a basis for development of insights and ideas, but we feel it is critical that ownership of the Innovation Process and organization be at the fulcrum of value creation in the company, the company’s chosen “Value Discipline”.

We use the model created a decade ago by Michael eacand Fred Wiersema in their book The Discipline of Market Leaders. In this work a model identifying three potential Value Disciplines (Operational Excellence, Product Leadership and Customer Intimacy) are described. eac and Wiersema’s key message is that a company chooses one “Value Discipline” as its key focus for differentiation while maintaining market competitiveness in the other two.

In our work we identify the chosen differentiating Value Discipline of our clients and then determine the optimum means of managing innovation including where in the organization accountability of innovation should reside; in an Operational Excellence company it should be managed in the area most responsible for efficient operations (manufacturing center, distribution center, etc.) and headed by the Chief Operating Officer, in a Product Leadership company it should be managed at the point of New Product/Service Development and should be lead by potentially the Chief Technology Officer or her equivalent, and in a Customer Intimate organization innovation management should reside where the focus is on the customer experience and their needs and should be lead by the Chief Marketing Officer or similar role.

It is critical that innovation be managed from the right place in the organization to ensure this work has credibility, timeliness and the proper knowledge and resources applied. If it not managed from the right place, political tug-of-wars occur, resources are ill-spent and differentiating ideas make it to the market too late if at all.

The Chasm Detroit Must Cross

In recent days we have heard much about the potential bailout of the “Big Three” automakers, while at the same time foreign auto manufacturers in the US are in hiring mode. The prime reason given for the Big Three Bailout is millions of jobs are at stake and the potential for the Big Three to default on $100 billion in loans which is affecting the financial sector of our economy. The Big Three CEO’s have come to Washington to plead their case, and Congress responded. “Show us a plan,” they said or “we cannot show you the money”. And in this plan it is expected that the Big Three outline how they will innovate to future success.

In the past Detroit was seen as a source of innovation, but as a recent BusinessWeek article described the current Chrysler (currently lead by Robert Nardelli, former HomeDepot CEO) is in the “innovation basement” lacking vision, design clarity and banking on old technology. This holds true for the other Big Two, and how they got here is clear to me. Innovation has become a chasm between the American Automotive Industry and the market.

I work on innovation issues in the auto industry, including OEMs, suppliers, engineers, designers, financial and marketing people. I have worked with US automotive companies, European automotive companies and Asian automotive companies and I have come to understand a key difference between US automotive companies and the others related to their ability to innovate: Automotive companies outside the US have a design mentality that permeates their enterprises.

What becomes clear to me with foreign automotive companies is the presence of what I call the “designer’s eye” in every aspect of the enterprise, a sense of aesthetic and function that instills a human appeal to the products they create. Whether it is the smallest component to be placed in the vehicle or the design of the vehicle itself, the designer’s eye is constantly present. This eye is present even in the most ardent engineer.

This is very counter to how American automotive companies approach their work. First of all, engineering is seen as a problem solving activity. Problem solving is based on a mindset that is reactive (responding to what is) rather than predictive (generating what could be). This reactive mindset precludes an aesthetic orientation, which is ultimately needed, so the ideas for new technologies and products are engineered and then handed off to designers to “package” and make functional and appealing, an activity often described as “design by committee.”

Second, the walls between engineering and design in American Automotive companies not only add to product development cycle times, but inhibit the sharing of the designer’s eye. Chris Bangle, the Chief of Design at BMW’s Design Center in Munich, Germany (an American, by the way) puts it this way, “At BMW we work with cross-functional teams from the start, with representation from design, engineering, human resources and financial controlling.”

A more fundamental issue may be influencing this designer’s eye; education. Schools in Europe and Asia place equal emphasis on the Arts and the Sciences. Students in Europe learn as much about the Master Painters and Architecture as they do about Physics and Differential Equations. I believe this emphasis creates a balanced perspective that is brought to the job.

So what should we look for in the Bailout Plans of the American Automotive Industry?

First, we must see that there is intention to instill higher levels of innovation in the products and technologies they produce. They must show concrete steps, including the integration of design and engineering, and having the courage to try new things. The challenges of the future are clear; meeting rising energy costs, reducing carbon emissions, and dealing with ever increasing congestion on our nation’s highways.

Second, we should see that the American Automotive Industry is willing to develop ideas that are less reactive and challenge consumer assumptions. Too often they have kowtowed to the whims of the American consumer (large SUVs) rather than developing compelling ideas and designs that are right for a changing world. This is evidenced by the fact that the Toyota Prius and other hybrids have taken the market by storm even though the American Automotive Industry introduced alternative vehicles years ago, but withdrew them when a small group of critics, including the Oil Industry, emerged.

Finally, the American Automotive Industry must be willing to challenge the constraints placed on it by related industries; in particular the oil industry. The influence of the oil industry has done much to direct the development of the American Auto Industry and it is imperative that for the American Automotive Industry to survive, the two must work together and address the challenges to both industries and the world.

Give customers what they need, not what they want…

In today’s column by Thomas Friedman "How to Fix a Flat" he eloquently (and passionately of course) speaks to the requested bailout of US auto companies and the tie to innovation (or “un-innovation” as he terms it). In setting out his logic for the “Big Three Failures” he states the un-innovation, “led to a situation whereby General Motors could make money only by selling big, gas-guzzling S.U.V.’s and trucks. Therefore, instead of focusing on making money by innovating around fuel efficiency, productivity and design, G.M. threw way too much energy into lobbying and maneuvering to protect its gas guzzlers.”

What Friedman says is all true, but the lingering question for me is “Why did they make gas guzzlers in the first place?” The answer to this, according to my marketing contacts in two of the Big Three, is, “We gave the customers what they wanted.” The American love affair with power and size drove the decisions made, and Detroit was not willing to challenge the customer mindset that desires the power and size that guzzles gas. Then, when the magic number of $4.00 per gallon came to be, customers stopped buying the guzzlers, and dealers were left with huge inventories of super-sized vehicles.

The fact is years ago trend research and future scenarios existed showing the $4.00 per gallon reality. In fact, at Launch Institute we played out this price scenario five years ago with Eaton Corporation’s Truck Division. Out of this work came the “Four Buck” Truck scenario resulting in the current Eaton Hybrid Electric Truck program, reducing fuel consumption for mid-sized delivery trucks (think the Fed Ex truck that brings packages to your door) by 35% and reducing emissions (another key innovation driver) by 45%.

At the time of this design work, fuel was under $2.00 per gallon, and the pressure to save fuel costs was not as intense as it is today. But at Eaton, under the visionary leadership of Eaton Truck’s President Jim Sweetnam and their Chief Technology Officer Tim Morscheck, the concept was incubated, prototyped and developed with several partners, included another visionary company, Fed Ex. Now the technology is being used in trucks, buses and will soon come to construction equipment.

If Eaton Truck had just listened to their customers they would have continued to make the same products and battled to keep the price for those products competitive. They were not satisfied to do this, and knew that their future lay would be built on ideas that met unspoken customer needs. Eaton takes the time to “play with” the future, and in this the see opportunities.

Back to Friedman’s point, what is the basis for Detroit’s un-innovation? I suggest it is two things; the lack of a capability to “play with” the future, and the absence of the anatomical parts to challenge their customer’s desires and by doing so ensuring a more successful future. They need to get it right this time, and we should demand this as criteria for any taxpayer dollars going to their aid.

Reinvigorating Your Innovation Process

Many organizations are finding their innovation process and toolset have become stale. The process has become routine, with accountable individuals routinely conducting the expected activities and applying tools and techniques that have overtime become more habitual and less inspirational. All this leads to less than exciting ideas and smaller return on our innovation dollars invested.

The fact is, we must continue to refresh our innovation processes and toolsets. The very reason we instituted these in the first place was to create a higher level of interest and engagement from our teams by doing things differently. Once our innovation work becomes routine, it fails to serve our needs.

At Launch Institute we have worked with organizations on their innovation processes and toolsets for years, observing the ebb and flow of ideas and results. We have observed three key areas where, with attention and focus, we can ensure the ongoing vitality of our innovation work. These areas include leadership, techniques and timing.

In the area of leadership, the innovation process most often originates at a high level in the organization; if not at the CEO level somewhere very close to that level. Over time, accountability for the process is delegated down in the organization where it becomes less leveraged and increasingly insulated from the corporate vision and ambition. Take for instance the company where the innovation process was established by the CEO and Chief Technology Officer to (successfully) support the development of a well envisioned breakthrough technology and within three years accountability for the same innovation process resides four levels below “C Level”, insulated and working on more incremental projects.

When organizations first utilize innovation techniques such as market sensing, brainstorming and idea development, they are considered unique and engage team members at a very high level. If the techniques are not refreshed and new techniques introduced, they become routine and team members blindly conduct the activities without putting their best thoughts forward. Another issue here is the use of internal company consultants who tend to be comfortable with a set of techniques rather than combining this with outside consultants to add some “spice” to the work.

We have observed this in an organization that has utilized the same techniques (no changes) for two years. The time frame for the sessions have been cut in half; not because the sessions have become more efficient (quality of ideas is worse) but because the interaction/discussions of the participants have narrowed to quickly filling in templates rather than deeply exploring the opportunity area and challenging each others assumptions.

The timing of innovation activities can also be a reason innovation work becomes routine, while initial innovation events were scheduled based on specific needs and hot topics, When the innovation process becomes de rigueur, yearly schedules are set and topics pre-selected, giving participants the sense much has been predetermined and the need for new ideas minimal. There should be a healthy mix of prescheduled events with events that are more spontaneous and timely. Higher level events such as scenario planning and opportunity identification should be prescheduled while more focused events such as identifying new product or service ideas should be conducted when the time is right.

A few suggestions on reinvigorating your process would be:
1. Conduct an audit of your current state of innovation work. Interview participants and those accountable and compare their comments to best practices in innovation management.
2. Be intentional about introducing new tools and techniques to keep participants stimulated and challenged. Include outsiders to add spice to tools and techniques as well as content.
3. Mix your events with prescheduled as well as “just in time” events that focus on timely needs.
4. Reengage senior leadership in the work of innovation, not only in the legitimization of the process, by looking to them for challenges and vision and ensuring their involvement in decision making processes.

Again, we must be vigilant in maintaining the creative edge of our innovation process and techniques to ensure the proper return on our innovation investment.

When Industries Converge: The Power of Coincidental Interaction

One of the prime sweet spots for new ideas is when industries and areas of specialization come together. Most often, these encounters are spontaneous and downright accidental. But more often companies are intentionally planning these encounters with the explicit intention of identifying quid pro quo business opportunities; creating new synergies and at times disruptive new technologies, products or services.

The next few entries in this blog will be related to industry convergence as a source of insights and new business ideas. I will describe programs companies have introduced to specifically find convergence opportunities but will start with the more spontaneous.

Take the case of BMW’s application of an iPod dock in its vehicle offerings. The story goes that an engineer from BMW’s Palo Alto Technology Office was sitting at a bar one evening waiting for his dinner partner and while at the bar met an Apple representative. As they described what they each were doing the vision of an iPod dock in every BMW emerged. The two traded cards, parted that evening and the rest is history.

Now this idea of an iPod dock will not solve world hunger and it certainly has only marginal effect on either BMW or Apple’s turnover, but it highlights the importance of “coincidental interaction” in the business innovation process. And although this encounter occurred totally by accident, some conditions existed that moved the interaction from an interesting coincidence to a business offering.

First of all, the two individuals met in Palo Alto a hotbed of innovation.. In 1997 BMW intentionally situated itself in the heart of Silicon Valley when opening their Palo Alto Technology Office (PATYO). The purpose of this opening was to put creative engineers from BMW in touch with others developing new technologies. This gives BMW a “launch pad” to develop not just great ideas but new relationships as well.

Second, the BMW engineers arrive at PATYO with specific project ideas on which to work, but they are also expected to “sense” opportunities beyond their specific projects. They attend seminars, interact with customer communities, and link up with those who know the pulse of Silicon Valley, such as researchers, R&D centers, venture capitalists and start up owners.

Finally, each BMW employee knows that he or she has a role in identifying and developing new opportunities. Given this expectation they are constantly scanning for new opportunities and know where to take the idea once they have it to ensure specific actions are taken.

Innovative companies are quite similar in this coincidental interaction capability, but, as outlined above, certain conditions must exist for the ideas to take form and a powerful relationship between two industry power houses to take shape.

To learn more about the BMW Apple innovation go to:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jun/21bmw.html