Foresight 20/20

I'm currently working on a couple of projects that require a lot of writing as I develop some new ideas.  As a result, I'm finding that I'm a bit overloaded on the writing thing, so I'll be posting more sporadically for the next month or two.  I think you'll like the ideas, and when I can I'll be posting about them here first.  This work is exciting for me, and I will want to know what you think when it's done.

I'm working on a project now where I'm trying to create a clear separation between the multidisciplinary team process for product implementation, vs product innovation.  On paper they look pretty much the same.  All the disciplines are represented, and the team is aligned around a common goal.

However, when you see the teams working together, something very different is happening between them.  The best analogy I've come up with so far is that the product implementation team behaves much like a soccer team.  The roles are clearly laid out, and the team members are executing specific tasks based on where the ball is at the moment.  On the other hand, the innovation team is operating more like a rugby team.  The roles are less clearly defined, and in a scrum, it's difficult to tell who's doing what, except that they all want to get the ball somewhere else and are working toward that end.

Implementation teams can work with clearly defined roles because the end product they are charged with making has been clearly defined.  Innovation teams are charged with figuring out what should be made. As such, clarity around roles is difficult, and it makes sense to have people who are more flexible and can fill gaps.

What are the characteristics you would look for if you needed to hire people to fill each type of team.  How are they similar, and how are they different?

Innovation requires your organization to do something new.  Not necessarily new to the world, but new to your company.  If you're doing something truly new to your organization, then it's impossible to know what the end result will be.  Every company is unique, so even borrowed ideas cannot be incorporated without careful integration.

One of my clients said "You can only operationalize what is known."  He is right.  And yet, I see so many companies looking for detailed innovation processes that will dictate the end result before a project actually begins.  There are even more consultants who are selling processes that promise to do just that.

Most companies make their money by setting up processes that can run on autopilot.  This only works if you know what you are making, and you have done it before.  You have a benchmark for improvement.  However, the results of an innovation process are not known.  There is no process, tool, or technique that can determine the answer for you.

A good process will show structure and rigor in guiding the thought process, but it will never dictate an answer.  An autopilot cannot make decisions.  It can only execute a preset response to a known set of inputs.  When you are in uncharted territory you need good people to make decisions based on the new information they receive.  It is irresponsible to think that this responsibility can be passed off by choosing a "process" that will make the decisions for you.

I have repeatedly heard the word insight as something to be observed, as in "We observed several insights on that consumer interview."

There are several entries in dictionary.com for the word insight.  In different ways, they all describe insight as an understanding of the true motivational forces that drive actions, define underlying truths, shed light on, or help to solve a problem.  Assuming that is true, insights cannot be observed directly; they need to be inferred or derived by thinking critically about the observations we make.

The word insight, as it is applied to consumer research, is increasingly misrepresented.  Observing behaviors and describing them is a fairly straightforward exercise, and many people can easily do this.  Deriving insights requires the ability to observe, infer why the observation occurred, formulate a theory, test the hypothesis against multiple data sources, and construct an argument that will prove that the conclusion is valid. A smaller subset of people who possess a specific aptitude and attitude are best suited to do this.

Almost everyone, however, has the ability to understand the difference between an observation and an insight. Mistaking them is understandable for most, but if you use consumer insights to inform your work, please make sure you know the difference.

What ideas has your company passed up because you lacked the resources to pursue them at the time?  Companies often pursue the ideas they know are achievable. 

Once the needs of the market are fully understood, many of those old ideas become viable.  Sometimes it's a matter of looking at them in a new way.  Other times it's a matter of having a reason to pursue an idea that may require more work to develop. Or sometimes an idea was ahead of its time, and now the world will be ready for it. 

Whatever the case may be, it makes sense to capture every idea and keep them in a place where they can be used as a source of inspiration.  Maybe create a library called The Cutting Room Floor or something like that.

Ultimately, an idea is only good if it satisfies your criteria.  When the criteria changes, then the cutting room floor may provide you with a wealth of solutions.

If your organization is like most, there are many processes in place that ensure no one can make a mistake that could cost the company vast sums of money, damage its reputation, or do other terrible damage.  While many of these processes are in place for a good reason, has anyone ever looked at the trade-offs that have been made as a result?

The reason I point this out is that I find it interesting that these processes are never, ever questioned.  Even though I've watched companies miss out on very lucrative opportunities as a result of blindly following existing processes, I have been left wondering why no one questioned what else could have been done to have avoided missing out on the opportunity.  A lot of effort goes into protecting the company from harm, which makes it all the more interesting that missed opportunities are seldom viewed as harmful.

I highly value thoughtfulness, and due diligence, and I am not advocating that companies abandon all existing processes to encourage people to chase after anything they want.  Far from it.  I just wanted to point out that it does seem a bit odd that questions about the value of missed opportunities are seldom, if ever, raised.  It would be interesting to see if there are some processes that are costing more than they save.

Do you know why all the processes at your company exist?  Would you know when their use should be questioned and/or challenged?

I talk a lot about learning from your market and applying that insight to grow your business. However, yesterday I realized that it's just as important to be aware of what you are teaching your market.

In a recent post on Jeff Jarvis' blog, he referenced a reader who talked about the ways the news industry needs to evolve its thinking to survive in the new economy. The new thinking is comprised of "Google'esque" ideas that focus on the value of journalism as a service rather than the paper as a product.  I left a comment that I think is worth exploring more thoroughly.

While I think the ideas presented are good, they do not address what I feel is a more fundamental issue in the news industry.  They have taught the market that the newspaper has value, and the content should be free.  While I'm sure they didn't do it on purpose, they lost sight of why people bought newspapers in the first place.  When they made the move to the web, they missed the opportunity to capture this value in a new way.  Instead they gave it away, and going forward it will be difficult to capture value for what consumers now expect to be free.

I do believe there is great value in good journalism.  Before the industry can pursue radically different business models to capture this value, they must first do whatever is necessary to decouple the journalism industry from the newspaper industry in the hearts and minds of consumers.  The market will never value journalism if the industry cannot demonstrate this value clearly, consistently, and separately from newspapers.

Are you aware of what your company's behavior is teaching your market?

When I was in business school, I did an independent study thesis on the fostering design and innovation within corporations.  The process required selecting a department and a professor to sponsor the work.  When I first started business school, I thought that my independent study would best be sponsored by either the finance or marketing departments as I felt that lens would give me the holistic view needed to foster innovation.  I was wrong.  After my first two semesters, I realized that the key to successful innovation would be to understand how people and organizations work - beyond the org. charts.  As a result, I did my independent study under the sponsorship of the Organizational Behavior Department.  What I learned has proven invaluable as I guide my client organizations through the culture, structure, and power issues to realize the change required to innovate. 

When clients ask me if there are any reference materials on innovation, I start with a few articles that I still find invaluable to help me think through intangible organizational issues in a clear, structured way.  I suggest they start with these articles to provide a common language and shed light on issues they will likely face.  Most of them are fairly old, but I have found them to stand the test of time.  Here are the articles I use as a foundation:

Edgar Schein - Organizational Culture - For some reason I can't find a link to this one.  If anyone finds it please send it to me. (Excellent for discussing culture in a tangible and concrete way.  Allows you to pinpoint cultural contradictions.)

Edgar Schein - Three Cultures of Management: The Key to Organizational Learning  Available for purchase. (Great for understanding what motivates people's decision-making, beyond functional discipline.)

Steven Kerr - On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B (A great reminder on the true power of reward systems.)

Margaret Wheatley - Searching for Order in an Orderly World  Available for purchase.  (In undertaking innovation projects, it's a great help to understand the the contrasts in creating order in natural and unnatural environments.)

Maureen Scully and Debra E. Meyerson - Tempered Radicalism and the Politics of Ambivalence and Change  Available for purchase. (Any internal person responsible for innovation is put in the position of being what the authors call "Tempered Radicals".  It's an excellent primer for the issues they face.)

Deborah Tannen - The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why - (A good look at the differences in communication styles, and how our biases shape who gets heard, who gets credit, and what gets done.  It's focused on gender differences, but the ideas are equally important to the cultural influences we face in an increasingly global workplace.)

Kurt Lewin - He pioneered the "Unfreeze, Move, and Refreeze" model that underlies all successful change management programs.  I had a professor once who said that we could look at all the different change models and find that they could all be reduced to Lewin's.  He was right.

Most consumer research focuses on learning about what people do, and most innovation projects focus on developing new technologies into things people will buy. Notice the disconnect?

Too little research is focused on how people make decisions, and too few innovation projects focus on developing something that fits better with people's decision processes.

Learning to do this type of research is difficult.  Learning to connect this research to the development process is even more difficult - and rare.  No one would argue that it is important to learn about how consumers make decisions, nor would they argue with the importance of connecting this knowledge to the development process is important.  In fact, many would say they are already doing it.

I have not seen a product or service fail when this is done well, and yet according to Stevens and Burley, at least 1 of 3 products fail  at launch despite research and planning.  Clearly, we can see that doing these activities does not mean we are succeeding at connecting them.

The other day I was having a chat with some colleagues about authenticity. Current wisdom suggests that brands and companies that are perceived to be less than authentic are doomed to fail. However, we know that brands, companies, and even people will behave differently in different situations. We even expect that they should. To lack the flexibility to do so would be socially disrespectful. So what is authenticity, and how to we ensure that others will perceive our work as authentic?

"To thine own self be true." That's the standard answer. If you are true to yourself, then you (meaning your brand, service, company, etc) will be perceived as authentic. However, I think that's only part of the answer. People can't judge how true you are to yourself. They judge how true you are to them, based on what they perceive. If you know what cues your market will respond to, then you can manage their perception consistently. This requires the ability to suspend what it means to be true to yourself, in order to fully immerse yourself in what it means to be true to someone else.

A few years ago, I was mentoring a person just starting out in his career. I imparted the standard guidance as he was doing his first solo project, and I asked him to periodically let me know what he thought was "cool", and why.  He did well on his project, and I learned a lot about how his social group thought about the world. One day, we were talking about why he shunned big, corporate brands, and he used me as an example.  "The coolest thing about you Ellen, is that you know how uncool you really are. Some big brands get that right, but most don't." 

Hmmm...who said authenticity was a good thing?