You see the challenges firsthand.
Growth in the core business has slowed. Meanwhile, the execution of innovation initiatives may have stalled despite the significant effort invested.
What has gone wrong? What can we do?
Remarkably, perhaps less.
In this month’s article, I address the question, “Have we gone too far?”
In The Innovator’s Dilemma, Clayton Christensen warns readers against chasing existing customers with high-value products. He instead advocates for good-enough products, the kinds of offerings that eventually disrupt the market.
Interestingly, many innovation practitioners, executives, and academics appear to be approaching—or perhaps have surpassed—a limit that the market for innovation insight cannot realistically absorb. Note the numerous books, posts, podcasts, workshops, conferences, and academic programs, each offering its own, often deep but increasingly narrow perspective on how to master and essentially routinize innovation.
Perhaps you agree. Perhaps not. Regardless of where you ultimately come down on this, it’s important to reflect on whether we’ve made things too difficult or too formalized, and to recognize that, at its core, innovation is a very human, very personal act of discovery.
We’re living in a time when most work in, not on their company. By reading this brief article, you’ll gain insight that, if applied, will make your innovation investment more efficient and effective.
In this essay, we’ll briefly explore whether, perhaps, we’ve gone too far.
Let’s do so by addressing a simple question:
- What do we expect from innovation processes and tools?
Innovation processes and tools1
While I believe that innovation processes and tools have their role, they are ultimately secondary to the people who use them. I’m talking about methods such as Stage-Gate processes, Open Innovation, Lean Innovation, Voice of the Customer, and Design Thinking. All valuable and have their place. Yet.
Innovation processes and tools properly structure innovation activities in a way that mirrors how most other processes in the company operate. They ensure that essential information and insights are not overlooked; they formally include the customer’s voice in the innovation process; they train less-experienced staff in innovation; they help experienced innovators recall and focus on the details. Such an approach is disciplined, not chaotic. It makes innovation more consistent and predictable, thereby reducing process variation. As a result, it makes investment in innovation more appealing to executives who lack relevant expertise, while also challenging them to make timely decisions.
Yet, what have I observed over time?
Simple processes and methods are most successful. And they are by far most effective when employed by those with deep expertise.
As merely an example, while Walter Herbst—a renowned product designer—and I were collaborating on writing No-Excuses Innovation, I had the privilege of seeing the world from his perspective. Notably, as we discussed the draft chapter on design thinking, Walter, an exemplar practitioner and educator, and an energetic advocate of this methodology, mentioned that introducing students to it dramatically increased their ability to develop successful product concepts. And I believe it. But, as we discussed further, I noted, and I believe correctly, that, in the hands of innovation exemplars, such as Walter and his son Scot, design thinking reaches heights that most others can only aspire to.2
As a second example, my friend and former colleague, Frank Chambers, led the innovation effort at a large industrial company. His team generated some creative, interesting ideas to improve the operation of shipping docks. But it was quickly apparent that these ideas were of their making, not tethered to customer needs. Instead of funding the next stage of product development, Frank gave them five months and a modest travel budget to visit a handful of the largest domestic ports to explore the needs of the people responsible for their operations. This was a classic example of developing customer insight. But it was not strictly tied to a specific method. As Frank put it, “our team met with their counterparts as people, not merely to implement a process.” This very human connection, carried out by some talented and personable individuals, led to a deeper understanding of potential needs and redirected the company’s efforts toward more productive outcomes.
So what?
Keep it simple.
Don’t over rely on unnecessarily complex processes and tools. Instead, identify, hire, develop, and manage those people who can make innovation happen in your company.
This is the path to innovation success. And I will share more on what this looks like in future essays.
If this resonates and you want to learn more about how we can help, click here to schedule a 45-minute introductory call to discuss your needs.
Endnotes:
- Adapted from: Vojak & Herbst, No-Excuses Innovation (Stanford University Press, 2022), Chapter 4: Innovation Processes and Tools ↩︎
- And, while Walter and Scot are exemplars, Walter is quick to point out that the first solution produced by this approach is never fully the right or ultimate solution. An important lesson here is that even the exemplars are always engaged in the act of discovery. ↩︎