After nearly five years, I'm moving my business/technology blog entries back here. My last post for Innova block IIC will be on June 15.
New Posts
My first post on this blog will continue the Measuring Ourselves series. I have plans to do entries on soft robotics, new ideas in agriculture, the next step in social networking, and more. It should be fun, and I welcome suggestions for other topics.
Updated Posts
I also intend to revamp some of the 100+ posts I did for Innova block IIC, presenting these every Thursday.
Week's Highlights
I see a lot of good articles with good ideas, and I've never had a good place to present them. Going forward, I hope to post links first on Twitter (@forgingthefutur), and then collect them each Friday here.
Those are the current plans. I hope you'll join me, and I welcome questions, comments, and suggestions.
Peter
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Monday, November 16, 2009
Open Perspectives on Innovation
Greetings from KMWorld in San Jose! I’m talking about open innovation -- working with those folks who live beyond the firewall to create new products, services and business models. Let’s assume everyone already appreciates that open innovation can combine ideas in wonderful ways that allow faster, broader, deeper and more appropriate use of insights and capabilities. The trick is actually getting from here to there, dealing with the practical problems of collaborative innovation.
Even within a firm, innovation is difficult to pull off. Ask any innovator about the hurdles they’ve had to clear, the disappointments and the outright failures. Working outside the firm just multiplies the issues because culture, law, goals, perspectives, values and even the meaning of word may not be aligned. Nevertheless, IBM’s First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) had pulled innovation off repeatedly over 14 years, and all of projects have been open in that a client has been a partner. What are the critical success factors? The lessons learned? The book is full of examples, but here are six insights that are vital:
Make sure all parties have skin in the game - Early FOAK projects that had no costs to clients went nowhere. People really do perceive something that is free as something that is worthless.
Certainly IBM has a history of creating large, innovative programs, such as the manufacturing of Cell processors for video games (STI alliance with Toshiba and Sony). These are strategic plays that involve big investments by the partners and lots of work by lawyers. Such joint programs can be compared to corporate mergers, and their lessons are hard to apply to any attempts at repeatable innovation initiatives.
Another program, Innovation Discovery, is more modest in scale but ambitious in terms of collaboration. The premise for this program is that the creativity, insights and capabilities of IBM’s clients are essential for important next generation products, services and business models. While IBM has walked into Innovation Discovery workshops with plenty of ideas, facts and expertise, they are all predicated on the concept that these are incomplete. The projects that may come out of the workshop are not known in advance.
The spirit of Innovation Discovery is partnership where no one has, at least in the beginning, a senior role. The right partner, therefore, is essential. Here are some of the prerequisites:
FOAK and Innovation Discovery are not the whole story. IBM and others are involved in a variety of collaborative ventures. Collaboratories, which seem to be a cross between FOAK and joint programs, are helping IBM establish closer connections with technical communities and governments in countries such as Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Ireland and Taiwan. One thing that successful collaborators in the innovation space have learned is that the goals -- which can extend beyond successful innovations -- must be clear to all parties.
Still, I think that the future for collaborative innovation will reach beyond new mixes of the forms we have today and of the admixtures of goals beyond innovation. I see fragmentation and deepening as possible and desirable. This is because the workforce has become more mobile and more virtual, and this is especially true of the best of the best talent upon which innovation depends. Let’s call the next step Promiscuous Innovation.
While matching the right talents to the right opportunities may sound like a good idea (and follows a model that has worked in Hollywood), there are a number of practical limitations that must be overcome.
I’m particularly concerned about the risks around trust and misunderstandings. As participation becomes broader and as the projects become bigger and of greater consequence, the whole approach could breakdown and lose credibility. The same kind of human drives that introduced malware, viruses and firewall penetrations into the world of the Internet are likely to keep Promiscuous Innovation from fulfilling all its potential.
On the other hand, we already have open software as an example of community-driven innovation. This is a hopeful sign that, within limits, the promise of bringing the best talent together to take on significant challenges and opportunities might just happen.
Peter Andrews
(I do not work for IBM and my views do not reflect IBM's views.)
Even within a firm, innovation is difficult to pull off. Ask any innovator about the hurdles they’ve had to clear, the disappointments and the outright failures. Working outside the firm just multiplies the issues because culture, law, goals, perspectives, values and even the meaning of word may not be aligned. Nevertheless, IBM’s First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) had pulled innovation off repeatedly over 14 years, and all of projects have been open in that a client has been a partner. What are the critical success factors? The lessons learned? The book is full of examples, but here are six insights that are vital:
Make sure all parties have skin in the game - Early FOAK projects that had no costs to clients went nowhere. People really do perceive something that is free as something that is worthless.
- Set expectations early and clearly - FOAK saw this in two ways. Innovation means magic to some people and is sure to disappoint. And in the normal course of things, IBM is pretty much bulletproof, which is impossible to guarantee in an innovation experience.
- Engage commercialization owners early and keep them engaged - This is probably the most important finding from FOAK. Prototypes don’t become part of project plans unless they are aligned from their inception and unless those commercializing are regularly kept informed and involved.
- Balance process with creativity - With FOAK, the emphasis is on a light but fairly inflexible process. Innovators don’t like limits, but the deadlines and commitments can’t be changed.
- Manage exceptions to maintain program integrity - Every project team thinks it has special circumstances that require bending the rules, but most don’t. While growth and change comes from exceptions, these are all high risk for the program.
- Communicate, communicate, communicate - This may seem obvious. But, even among those who accede to the value of communication, two problems crop up. First, there is a tendency to get focussed on people you are working with directly and neglect other (vital) stakeholders, so communication activities need to be tracked. Second, people forget that communication isn’t just talking, it’s listening.
Certainly IBM has a history of creating large, innovative programs, such as the manufacturing of Cell processors for video games (STI alliance with Toshiba and Sony). These are strategic plays that involve big investments by the partners and lots of work by lawyers. Such joint programs can be compared to corporate mergers, and their lessons are hard to apply to any attempts at repeatable innovation initiatives.
Another program, Innovation Discovery, is more modest in scale but ambitious in terms of collaboration. The premise for this program is that the creativity, insights and capabilities of IBM’s clients are essential for important next generation products, services and business models. While IBM has walked into Innovation Discovery workshops with plenty of ideas, facts and expertise, they are all predicated on the concept that these are incomplete. The projects that may come out of the workshop are not known in advance.
The spirit of Innovation Discovery is partnership where no one has, at least in the beginning, a senior role. The right partner, therefore, is essential. Here are some of the prerequisites:
- Commonality - If the values, goals and vision of the partners are too different, it will be difficult for them to move forward together.
- Complementary capability - Each partner must bring something essential that will be used in the innovation project. They need to be the only reasonable source of this capability so that there is mutual dependency.
- Trust - Are both partners invested in the success of each other? Can they deliver on their promises? When things get rough, will they? The relationship is sure to be challenged by the circumstances of innovation, so doubts about the partner can lead to disaster.
- Change management - Sometimes the closest relationships include not just the comforts of a tried and true marriage, but the drawbacks. Something new is about to happen. If the ingrained patterns of who does what and who owes what to whom are too strong, that can limit the extent of the innovation.
FOAK and Innovation Discovery are not the whole story. IBM and others are involved in a variety of collaborative ventures. Collaboratories, which seem to be a cross between FOAK and joint programs, are helping IBM establish closer connections with technical communities and governments in countries such as Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Ireland and Taiwan. One thing that successful collaborators in the innovation space have learned is that the goals -- which can extend beyond successful innovations -- must be clear to all parties.
Still, I think that the future for collaborative innovation will reach beyond new mixes of the forms we have today and of the admixtures of goals beyond innovation. I see fragmentation and deepening as possible and desirable. This is because the workforce has become more mobile and more virtual, and this is especially true of the best of the best talent upon which innovation depends. Let’s call the next step Promiscuous Innovation.
While matching the right talents to the right opportunities may sound like a good idea (and follows a model that has worked in Hollywood), there are a number of practical limitations that must be overcome.
- Richness of interactions - With many talented people working remotely from each other, it might be difficult or even impossible for key people to develop trust, initiative and impromptu creative exchanges that lead to the best insights.
- Authenticity - Knowing at every turn that the person you are dealing with is who they say they are and has the claimed qualifications is difficult when there are no organizations (with reputations at stake) standing behind them. This is especially true for people who exist mainly as an email address.
- Fairness - How credit, cash and other benefits are shared among members of a group of talented people is a problem even within traditional structures, and those with more tenuous ties may have more concerns. In addition, there is a real risk that some talented people will become increasingly closed over time and may have no reason to be inclusive. “Good old boy” networks may become a real problem.
I’m particularly concerned about the risks around trust and misunderstandings. As participation becomes broader and as the projects become bigger and of greater consequence, the whole approach could breakdown and lose credibility. The same kind of human drives that introduced malware, viruses and firewall penetrations into the world of the Internet are likely to keep Promiscuous Innovation from fulfilling all its potential.
On the other hand, we already have open software as an example of community-driven innovation. This is a hopeful sign that, within limits, the promise of bringing the best talent together to take on significant challenges and opportunities might just happen.
Peter Andrews
(I do not work for IBM and my views do not reflect IBM's views.)
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Know Thy Collaborator: Seven practices
Focus groups, opinion polls, tests and even ethnographers are enlisted to better understand clients. Why? If their needs, interests, emotions and concerns can be better understood, they can be engaged and their loyalty -- whether for purchases, influence or votes -- can be assured. Success in our society requires the action and commitment of others.
It's no surprise that innovation -- a social activity where trust is so vital -- also requires the engagement and loyalty of others. Unfortunately, many innovators just let this happen, counting on their own instincts and skills in relationships to get the job done.
Let's think about that. If building these ties comes so naturally, why do firms invest so much in studying clients? Why is such data coveted to the point that many activities (such as harvesting of clicks) have become privacy concerns? Perhaps, without crossing the line, it would be valuable for innovators to become more systematic about knowing and understanding their collaborators.
Since it is unlikely that a piece of the research or development budget has been carved out for this purpose, let's look at some low cost approaches to learning more about collaborators.
Peter Andrews, coauthor of Innovation Passport -- This post reflects my own views and not those of IBM.
(I still am going through materials from Atlanta. More on that in a future post.)
It's no surprise that innovation -- a social activity where trust is so vital -- also requires the engagement and loyalty of others. Unfortunately, many innovators just let this happen, counting on their own instincts and skills in relationships to get the job done.
Let's think about that. If building these ties comes so naturally, why do firms invest so much in studying clients? Why is such data coveted to the point that many activities (such as harvesting of clicks) have become privacy concerns? Perhaps, without crossing the line, it would be valuable for innovators to become more systematic about knowing and understanding their collaborators.
Since it is unlikely that a piece of the research or development budget has been carved out for this purpose, let's look at some low cost approaches to learning more about collaborators.
- Know what you need to know. The biggest things to understand are the skills your partners can provide and how the collaboration benefits them. But it is also important to know what limits they operate under, what measurements are useful to them and many other of their parameters for success. The list can get long and particular, and it needs to be written somewhere. Don't forget the soft stuff, like attitudes toward promptness and pet peeves.
- Listen. A lot of people are very good at listening. Few people are great. Many innovators are so focused on their ideas that they form their next sentences as the other person speaks and listen with half an ear. Or they may even interrupt. Listening involves not just paying attention and letting people finish. It involves creating opportunities for them to talk (such as having regular calls and putting them onto the agenda). It means watching body language, hearing intonation and hesitation and looking beyond what the words denote to their implications. What the people are really saying.
- Practice contact management. Make it a practice to be in contact on a regular basis with everyone who is a potential collaborator. Keep track. If you can see the person face-to-face at least every 90 days, that makes a big difference. If you haven't done a favor (which can be connecting with a useful contact or just passing on an article of interest) within 90 days, that partner is not part of your network anymore.
- Work together. This is a great way to get to know collaborators in small ways. Project like presenting a paper together or doing volunteer efforts in the same group can provide a sense of style, mutual commitment and trust. Playing together is good, too. (Sometimes better.)
- Ask. Innovators have an advantage over pollsters, they can actually engage in real conversations with the potential and current collaborators. For the former, they can get answers to outstanding questions. For the latter, they can, like one-time NYC mayor Ed Koch, ask "How am I doing?" Of course, open-ended questions that can't be answered yes or no are best.
- Keep score. Track the benefits provided, the success in improving the relationship, the contacts from both sides -- whatever can allow you to keep active and gain insights. Don't count on your memory alone.
- Share prudently. You are not the only one connected to your collaborators. Others have insights and information. And you have all that you've learned to offer them, as well. Naturally, you need to be careful of gossip or violations of trust. But the knowledge and perspectives of others can augment what you have and provide a reality check to some of your assumptions.
Peter Andrews, coauthor of Innovation Passport -- This post reflects my own views and not those of IBM.
(I still am going through materials from Atlanta. More on that in a future post.)
Friday, October 9, 2009
Enterpreneurs Fool Themselves... and That's a Good Thing
Successful innovators tend to be optimistic. They take on more risk than their peers. But like all of us, they need to manage uncertainty and risk. From on objective standpoint, at least some successful innovators -- academics applying for grants -- don't do that well. In fact, they treat their assumptions -- including assumptions over which they have no control -- as facts. This gives them an illusion of control and can make them overconfident.
One of the highlights of my visit to the Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy was Dr. Megan Haller's presentation, "Rethinking Academic Entrepreneurship." She surveyed over a thousand academic scientists, asking them questions about the influences of their advice networks and collaborators in their decision making. She had some interesting findings:
Another interesting point is that there is such a big difference between the impacts of advice networks and efficacy networks. I think what this boils down is that advice is cheap. The influence of people who have skin in the game is what really matters. This would imply that the wisdom of crowds is more wise when there is an admission charge.
That partners need to have skin in the game was one of the main lessons of FOAK, and I think it is confirmed here (interestingly, in an academic setting). There is also, between the lines, a confirmation of the role of passion. Here we have hundreds of successful scientists grabbing their illusions of control with both hands -- once they believe the work is worth doing.
This is just one jewel from the conference. I'll have some more remarks on what I learned in Atlanta with my next posting.
Peter
(I do not work for IBM and my views do not reflect IBM's views.)
One of the highlights of my visit to the Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy was Dr. Megan Haller's presentation, "Rethinking Academic Entrepreneurship." She surveyed over a thousand academic scientists, asking them questions about the influences of their advice networks and collaborators in their decision making. She had some interesting findings:
- While large, diverse advice networks provide a good reality check, that doesn't translate into more success in getting funding.
- Scientists with large efficacy networks (bigger pools of potential collaborators) are more likely to show an illusion of control (believe they can influence things beyond their actual reach).
- Scientists with more of an illusion of control are more likely to be overconfident.
- The overconfident scientists make fewer applications for grants, but they have higher success rates.
Another interesting point is that there is such a big difference between the impacts of advice networks and efficacy networks. I think what this boils down is that advice is cheap. The influence of people who have skin in the game is what really matters. This would imply that the wisdom of crowds is more wise when there is an admission charge.
That partners need to have skin in the game was one of the main lessons of FOAK, and I think it is confirmed here (interestingly, in an academic setting). There is also, between the lines, a confirmation of the role of passion. Here we have hundreds of successful scientists grabbing their illusions of control with both hands -- once they believe the work is worth doing.
This is just one jewel from the conference. I'll have some more remarks on what I learned in Atlanta with my next posting.
Peter
(I do not work for IBM and my views do not reflect IBM's views.)
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Book Is Now for Sale; I'm headed for Atlanta
Innovation Passport is finally for sale. It can be found on Amazon, B&N and dozens of other venues. If you go to the FOAK page on the IBM site, you'll find instructions for a 35% discount (and free US shipping).
I've been getting lots of questions about the book. The primary ones are what is it about and who is it for. It is about collaborative innovation, in particular about the experience that IBM has had bringing together its researchers with key clients to bring things into the marketplace. There are lots of tips and lessons about how to do this, all grounded in 14 years of experience. While there are specifics in areas like legal concerns, I'd say that the people part of collaboration predominates. Innovation is a social activity, and that's something that can get lost as we develop processes and rules. You'll find the complete FOAK process and a good number of rules in Innovation Passport, but you'll find more direction on getting people with different values, needs, cultures, disciplines and languages working together.
As to who the book is for, I'd say the primary audience is folks who are interesting in doing innovation activities. This is not a book about theory. It is not abstract. The starting point was the projects that have been funded by the program: reports were read and there were interviews with many of the participants. Mary Jo lives in the center of all this. I was the sometimes naive questioner or just a bug on the wall. So, if you need to make new things actually happen, you should find useful ideas here (as well as a look toward the future). I'm hoping business people, researchers, entrepreneurs, executives and managers will be able to put our hard-won lessons to use.
Questions? Please feel free to post them here. Or send me a note at forgingthefuture@gmail.com I'll be in Atlanta Oct 1-3 for anyone in that area, San Jose on Nov 15-17. NY most of the rest of the time. I'm always looking for good conversations, interviews and speaking opportunities.
Peter
(I do not work for IBM and my views do not reflect IBM's views)
I've been getting lots of questions about the book. The primary ones are what is it about and who is it for. It is about collaborative innovation, in particular about the experience that IBM has had bringing together its researchers with key clients to bring things into the marketplace. There are lots of tips and lessons about how to do this, all grounded in 14 years of experience. While there are specifics in areas like legal concerns, I'd say that the people part of collaboration predominates. Innovation is a social activity, and that's something that can get lost as we develop processes and rules. You'll find the complete FOAK process and a good number of rules in Innovation Passport, but you'll find more direction on getting people with different values, needs, cultures, disciplines and languages working together.
As to who the book is for, I'd say the primary audience is folks who are interesting in doing innovation activities. This is not a book about theory. It is not abstract. The starting point was the projects that have been funded by the program: reports were read and there were interviews with many of the participants. Mary Jo lives in the center of all this. I was the sometimes naive questioner or just a bug on the wall. So, if you need to make new things actually happen, you should find useful ideas here (as well as a look toward the future). I'm hoping business people, researchers, entrepreneurs, executives and managers will be able to put our hard-won lessons to use.
Questions? Please feel free to post them here. Or send me a note at forgingthefuture@gmail.com I'll be in Atlanta Oct 1-3 for anyone in that area, San Jose on Nov 15-17. NY most of the rest of the time. I'm always looking for good conversations, interviews and speaking opportunities.
Peter
(I do not work for IBM and my views do not reflect IBM's views)
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Innovation Passport is available for preorder on Amazon
We are delighted to announce that Innovation Passport: The IBM First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) Journey from Research to Reality can now be preordered from Amazon.com.
Here's a short description of the book:
Going from invention to product or service has never been easy. With the increasing complexity of opportunities, many vital innovations can only be developed with partners. Such collaborations face challenges of culture, trust and geography. Innovation Passport: The IBM First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) Journey from Research to Reality tells the story of the IBM First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) program. Over the last 13 years, IBM has taken hundreds of research assets and road tested them with its most valued clients. The FOAK program has stepped up to the demands of combining teams, often from different countries, to refine and tune inventions. At each step, commercialization remains a focus so that successful projects lead to successful offerings. Readers will be able to follow the time-tested FOAK process. They'll also get tips, guidance and caveats. For those who want to better understand technology transfer and how to make it happen, this is the book.
Here's a short description of the book:
Going from invention to product or service has never been easy. With the increasing complexity of opportunities, many vital innovations can only be developed with partners. Such collaborations face challenges of culture, trust and geography. Innovation Passport: The IBM First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) Journey from Research to Reality tells the story of the IBM First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) program. Over the last 13 years, IBM has taken hundreds of research assets and road tested them with its most valued clients. The FOAK program has stepped up to the demands of combining teams, often from different countries, to refine and tune inventions. At each step, commercialization remains a focus so that successful projects lead to successful offerings. Readers will be able to follow the time-tested FOAK process. They'll also get tips, guidance and caveats. For those who want to better understand technology transfer and how to make it happen, this is the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)