It's no secret that I believe that the ability to translate market needs into viable offerings that meet those needs is the key to successful innovation.  It's also no secret that I believe that this ability does not reside in any one discipline, educational background, or company process.  Last year I wrote three posts, each about an element of translation that I felt was important for an organization to embrace the capability. The three elements were Awareness, Capability, and Evaluation.

I still believe that these three elements are necessary for an organization to embrace translation, and I have been focusing on what it would take to actually recognize and build it.  In the post about having the capability to translate, I ask the question about whether or not the organization has the right people to perform this task.  This past year, I have been trying to put my finger on what exactly it is that a person who is good at translating is actually doing?  What skills do they posses?  Is it learned?  If so, then how do you teach someone, and by extension an organization, to make accurate connections between seemingly unrelated ideas, disciplines, process phases, or stakeholder needs?  Is it innate?  If so, then how do you teach an organization to recognize these skills, accept the differences, and embrace the outcomes?

Where I have landed is that everyone can learn better techniques and processes such as deriving motivations from contextual research, or evaluating intangible attributes.  However, even with the best techniques and processes, some people are able to make these connections, and others are not.  Once that pink elephant in the room was called out, the rest became more clear.  It gave me a different perspective on process, and has allowed me to continue to hone my best practices in identifying these people because these skills don't fit on current HR checklists.

Some people may not like this conclusion, but it's really no different than recognizing that people possess different physical abilities that make them better than others at physical tasks, so why wouldn't different mental abilities exist as well?  An exploration into the field of perceptual psychology has shed some light on this subject for me as well, especially when we look at recent research into synesthesia. 

Synesthesia is a perceptual experience, where some type of sensory crossover takes place.  For example, a person with synesthesia may hear sounds when they see certain colors, or they may experience a smell when they come in contact with certain textures.  Historically, synesthesia has been confined to describing specific sensory crossovers that are not experienced by the general population.  Recent research by experts in synesthetic perception, has broadened the understanding of what goes on in our brains as we perceive the world around us.  He has found that cross-sensory mapping is happening all the time, to the point that we take it for granted.  For example, dancing is a kinetic response to sound stimulus; a cross-sensory mapping ability that goes unquestioned by the general public.  They suggest that we only notice when people perceive sensory crossovers that are not commonly experienced by the average person.  It sticks out when someone sees a color and hears a sound, but we don’t find it odd that a person may hear a sound, and move their body in a way that mimics the rhythm of the sound.

The newest thinking actually goes so far as to define synesthesia as a consciously elevated form of the perception that everyone already has.  Just as people have varying degrees of physical abilities, it makes sense that varying degrees of perceptual abilities exist as well.  It therefore also makes sense that some people are naturally better at perceiving one type of input, such as consumer motivation, and mapping it to a seemingly disconnected output, such as an offering toward which the consumer will respond positively.  To put it bluntly, some people are better at making the connections necessary to create successful, market relevant innovation, and this skill is independent of which discipline they choose to study.

So what does this mean for translation ability?  Is it a form of synesthesia?  A form of creativity?  Much more work needs to be done before we will know for sure.  What is important is that we are beginning to develop models that support the idea that getting the right people in place to focus on innovation is an important first step.  We can then develop systems and processes to support them, rather than take the place of the human element.

A few weeks ago, I reponded to a post on Jeff Jarvis' blog, asking his readers to help with the title of his upcoming book, "WWGD: What Would Google Do?"  Apparently Jeff's publisher wanted him to ditch the WWGD part of the title, suggesting that it was redundant when combined with the rest of the title.  Jeff felt that without the initials, the joke (a play on WWJD - What Would Jesus Do?) would be lost.

The readers commented with various reasons why Jeff should either listen to his publisher, or stick to his guns, with Jeff jumping in periodically.  After about 75 comments that went on this way I had to jump in.  Here's an excerpt from my post:

This is a great exchange, but to me it doesn’t matter what we all think. You should decide based on What Google Would Do, since that is the point of your book (as I understand it).

I went on to discuss how the joke may not naturally play out the same way twice, and how he's trying to control a viral message.  Would Google try to maintain such control?  Here's Jeff's response:

ellen,
Well, there’s the best advice of all. what would google do if they created someting this? what would be googley? simplicity, I suppose.

I'm not sure where Jeff will end up with his book title, but I am sure that he will think about the issue differently.  What's interesting to me is that 75 people obediently responded to a question that forced a choice between two options, both of which may not be the right answer.

The next time you find yourself facing a similar choice, and the options seem to be based on one opinion versus another, ask yourself whether you are trying to answer the right question in the first place.  And then ask yourself what your customer would want, because the answer to that question is where you will most likely find the highest value solution.

Based on the questions in Jeff's response, he's not sure yet what the answer is, but he is seeking an answer to the right question.

Are the people in your company aware of how their job function can actually contribute to realizing the company strategy?  Can they even articulte the company strategy?

You can find out if they can articulate the company strategy by asking them.  But how do you know if they are aware of how their job function can help to realize it?  If the people in the company are not aware of how their job function contributes to the realization of the corporate strategy, then how can they make decisions that will keep everyone aligned toward the same direction?

Try asking your employees why they made the choices they made last week.  For example, if your company is trying to compete through becoming the technical leader in your industry, then everything your employees do should support that message.  If you run a design group, and your employees are choosing colors because they are popular, then you have a disconnect.  They should be selecting colors that connote technical excellence.  If they do not know what connotes technical excellence to your consumers, they should be asking to conduct research into that topic. 

The same goes for the engineering group.  If they are doing things because it was the way they did them at their last company - the company that is not the techcnical leader, then there is a disconnect.

The point here really, is that people want to be successful.  They will try to replicate past successes.  Your job is to make them aware of the need to examine the reasons behind past successes.  The reason why something worked before may be exactly the same reason why it will not work now.  It will be difficult for your company to realize its strategic goals if your employees are pulling you in different directions. 

Be aware of what direction your employees are going, and be sure they are aware of how their choices can keep you on track or lead you astray.

I wrote a post a while ago about Consumer Translation.  In it I talked about how it doesn't matter if you have determined how best to guide your business based on consumer insights if your organization lacks the skills to translate what the insight and direction means to them as they do their day-to-day jobs.

Since then, I've been seeing more and more examples of these messages getting lost in translation.  Strategic directions are mapped out and explained, criteria for the success of new products and services are explained, and even the final executions of products that satisfy the criteria are determined with good consistency.  And then the products get built.  And they end up not being very different from the products and services they have always built.

As with most things, the success all comes down to the details.  Little decisions get made that put people back in the comfort zone of doing what they have always done, for the same reasons.  In the next few posts, I'll explore what I see as the main areas of focus that can help to facilitate successful translation.