( Top-down , bottom-up or all around ? )
Innovation : a new way of doing something. It may refer to incremental, radical, and revolutionary changes in thinking, products, processes, or organizations. A distinction is typically made between invention, an idea made manifest, and innovation, ideas applied successfully. (source : http://www.wikipedia.org/)
Well, that definition sort of does sum-up what innovation is, however when it comes to practicing or further still - mastering the art of innovation, most organizations hit plateaus much sooner than later.
Now why is that ?
Based on my experiences and consumption of information around / interaction with people around, I have made some observations :
The 3 most crucial components that make any innovation successful are (and I am considering being the first-mover to be an implicit imperative) :
^ radicalness
^ benefit
^ execution
If you are the first mover, you leave a huge gap behind for competition to catch up.
If you are catching up, you better be fast to not only catchup but outdo the leader at break-neck speed.
To outdo means that the benefits your innovation offers, are better than anybody else around.
Self-explicit. Or is it ? If the mantra is so simple, then why are we mostly talking about the same set of companies always ? Why don't we see a dozen new companies across every year that race to the top 20 on this index ?
Source : BusinessWeek
Is it just because these companies have phenomenal leadership at the helm ? Or is it because that these companies nurture a culture of innovation ?
I mean everybody knows that Steve Jobs has an unbelievable and un-quenchable desire to make products that the competition can only just marvel at ! forget outdoing, they can not even ape Apple products properly.
But is it just Jobs alone in Apple that is responsible for innovating ? Is he the one that comes out with ideas ? Or is he simply a terrific leader who inspires innovation !
Take BMW as another example - those guys build tanks that move like the wind ! And they always make it unbelievably better than the last one ! For a company that goes as far back as 1916 - they don't have a Steve Jobs there, or in P&G. And enough has been talked about Google and it's innovation speed.
What these companies have in common is a culture of innovation , better still, they have processes that help nurture/ facilitate this culture.
Operationally what that means is that people are empowered to ideate and implement those ideas and their organizations are willing to take the risk of spending R&D dollars for driving those ideas to success !
May 26, 2009
Innovation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
In a knowledge industry, there aren't economies of scale, there are economies of ideas. Leaders have to create an environment in which clever people can thrive. These are the handful of employees whose ideas, knowledge, and skills give them the potential to produce disproportionate value from the resources their organizations make available to them. Their single innovations may bankroll an entire company for years. However, if clever people have one defining characteristic, it is that they do not want to be led. And that is the challenge for managers and executives - How do you lead clever people?
The previous comment originates from an HBR paper titled 'Leading Clever People' - extremely insightful.
Nimish, that is the key. Smart people have the capability of turning things around. However, all teams (organizations) are made up of a bunch of people who fare differently on the IQ scale.
A true leader or manager has to play to the strengths of his / her team. There is no thumb rule to make it possible.
An orchestra is a classic example - not all people can play all instruments but together they can play a symphony !
Post a Comment