I was recently asked to contribute a short piece to the blog section of a new website - OnInnovation.  It's sponsored by the Henry Ford Foundation, and is intended to collect insights from innovators and thought leaders, and enable people to connect with their ideas.  I thought it was a great idea, and one worth supporting.  Below is an intro and link to my post:

Preserving Dignity to Drive Creativity
Posted August 10, 2010
We’ve all had the nightmares in one form or another.  You find yourself at a podium and you forgot what your speech was about.  Or you are at the office and realize that you aren’t wearing any pants.  These nightmares are powerful reminders of our deep seated fear of exposing ourselves to the judgment of [...]  Read Complete Post

I'd love to know what you think of the site.  Does it have legs?

I was recently reminded of the "hit rate" for investment in innovation (I'm also including entrepreneurial ventures here).  Most companies, VC's and others use estimates as rules of thumb.  An optimistic one is something like 1/3 of their investments will be winners, 1/3 will break even, and 1/3 will fail.  Others are more like 1% will be wild successes, 2 - 3% will do OK, and the rest will fail.

What's interesting to me is that most people accept these rules of thumb.  The reason why this is interesting is because this means that for the most part, people buy into the idea that the likely success of a new venture is largely random.  And yet there is a lot of money being spent on market research, market testing, basic due diligence, etc. before deciding to pursue a new opportunity. 

Clearly, there are forces at work that the current business community and education system do not yet recognize, let alone support and develop.  Steve Jobs' success at identifying and developing winning ideas may be intuitive, but it is not as if he is a magic person with a crystal ball.  He is just an example of someone who naturally has the ability to connect underlying market motivations with new and different offerings to satisfy them.  I'm sure there are others who have this natural ability, but if they do not also have the desire or skill to be the CEO of a large company, then the output of this ability will not be as apparent. 

There is a lot of talk about the "new economy", and how the skills that got us through the industrial age will not work to take us forward.  And yet we are so entrenched in nurturing the skills necessary for success in the industrial age, that we no longer remember the fact that it took a lot to get people to focus less holistically so they could work more efficiently within the required corporate silos. 

Success in the future will require that we recognize, develop, and nurture the ability to think holistically; to be able to see similarities in ideas and objects that appear dissimilar on the surface.  This is what is necessary to make a connection between an underlying motivation, and developing a new solution to satisfy that motivation.  In my opinion, the current "rules of thumb" tolerate a lot of waste in the system.  I think we can do better.  Until then I'll continue my work in helping to build a linear path for organizations to reduce the random nature of their innovation investments.  It seems that it's currently the only way for the people who can think like Steve Jobs, but are not Steve Jobs, to make their ideas heard.

This all makes me wonder about two things.  Will we ever get to the point where most of us can spot the difference between a good creative idea and a bad creative idea before we invest in developing a product to see real market results?  And will we ever get to a point where people will recognize the limitations of linear logic, and use it in good balance with more holistic logic?

There's no question that truly innovative people are creative.  But creativity alone is not enough.  True innovators, those people who can deliver new ideas and offerings that are relevant to the market, possess something in addition to creativity.  I've been doing a lot of work in this area lately, and will be working with PDMA and with a consortium at the Steven's Institute to help identify best practices and build a body of knowledge in this area, especially as it relates to enterpreneurship and new venture creation.

However, before we can build a credible body of knowledge in this area, we must first be able to identify what "it" is that successful innovators have that others - even highly creative people - may not have.  I've written about this briefly where I've metaphorically described this skill as the ability to make synesthesia-like connections between seemingly unrelated ideas or observations.  But ultimately, I think this is just one way to describe the way they perceive the world and make connections within it. 

What's interesting to me is that we currently don't have a good way to talk about the way people perceive relative to how it may help or hinder them in doing specific jobs.  Is there anything on your resume that talks about the way you perceive the world?  I would guess not.  And if there was, would it be even remotely helpful to the person reading your resume?  Again, probably not. And yet this is the one area where I see people either succeed or fail in their ability to perform as early stage entrepreneurs, investors, and innovation managers in large companies.

I'm also not sure if it's the actual perceptual skills that are different, or the way our brains process what we are perceiving.  For example, if a person who sees the similar in the dissimilar looks at a block of ice, a puddle of water, and a cloud of steam, they would describe them all as similar - they are all composed of H2O.  Others would look at the surface details and describe them as three different structures.  Is that perceiving, or processing?  I hope to collect different points of view on this question as part of the body of knowledge. 

What I do know now is that when you are assessing someone's ability to successfully innovate, it might be useful to stop and think about how they perceive the world.  Are they able to see similarities in dissimilar things?  Do the similarities make sense?  Is the person assessing them able to tell the difference?  As John Hagel states in many different ways in his blog, we are about to enter a Great Shift in how our world works.  It might be time to figure out how to define perceptual skills that could go easily unrecognized in the old economy, yet will be absolutely necessary for success in the new economy. 

We hear a lot about the need to break down silos, to look outside of the usual venues for innovative ideas, and to embrace new points of view. In this day and age, we have access to more information from more sources than ever before. At first glance, it would seem that the task of collecting different ideas and points of view would be easier than ever.

Unfortunately it doesn't always play out that way. Because there is so much information out there, the new challenge is in filtering out what is relevant from what is not, and this task is as daunting as finding new information used to be. Think about this the next time you search for information. How are you determining the relevance?  What are your filters? I do believe that people need filters to help them to cut through all the daunting information out there.  However, what I'm finding is that it is now the filters that are limiting the diversity of the ideas and points of view, rather than the desire to seek out what is new.

Filters are useful to the extent that they are used to focus the mind to recognize relevant information. But how often do you notice when people are using irrelevant filters? For example, if a certain author or expert provided useful information in the past, their point of view may be less likely to be questioned in the future. It becomes a shortcut that is intended to save time, but can result in blind following and group think. As I've said before, there is no excuse for not thinking about what you are doing. Especially in the realm of innovation, every problem is unique and a new filter must be created for every query for new information. This doesn't need to take a lot of time, but it does require that you stop and think before blindly accepting or dismissing new information or sources.

What filters are you using as you make decisions about new ideas or points of view? If you ask yourself if they are relevant to your current task at hand, you may be surprised at your answer.

This weekend I read a fascinating article by Columbia professor Dr. Robert Jervis in the Boston Globe.  He wrote about the way our brains make connections, how these connections inform our decisions, and how this process could have contributed to the incorrect decisions the CIA has made when drawing conclusions about terrorist threats.  He made two points that were of particular interest to me.

The first point is his assertion that humans are very good at recognizing patterns and making connections that are relevant to our world view.  In the work I've been doing, I would call this a linear connection.  The second point is that once humans reach a conclusion, they are not very good at questioning their initial assumptions.  They tend to disregard or manipulate data that could call their conclusions into question. (I'm sure we've all had frustrating experiences with this human trait.)

After reading the article, I was struck by the similarities between the problems the CIA is experienceing, and th eproblems many companies have when trying to innovate.  And as is often the case with companies it became clear that, while I'm sure the CIA has plenty of good problem solvers among their ranks, I would bet they are lacking people with good problem-posing skills.  Successful innovators are very good at questioning assumptions, making non-linear, synesthesia-like connections, and posing new problems.  These people are more open to finding the path that reconciles the data they have, rather than paying attention only to the data that reconciles the path they have chosen.  Sound familiar?

All of this then made me question one of my own assumptions.  I believe that people who can make relevant (as opposed to random) connections between seemingly disparate ideas have a heightened ability to make cognitive connections.  I have imagined this very physically, as a brain with more physical connections being made. But is it really this way?  Maybe these people lack the ability to make the well worn connections that others make, resulting in the need to make new connections more often.  Or maybe it's not physical at all.  Is it due to a difference in the way we perceive information, or a tendency to suspend judgment until all data is reconciled?

I don't have an answer as to why this happens, but as I work to build models to objectively select people with good problem posing abilities I'm realizing that the need to identify and nurture their skills is broader than I had anticipated.

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.

We've talked about the difference between the innovation process and the development process in terms of the results they are expected to achieve; the innovation process being used to identify market relevant opportunities for innovation, and the development process being used to efficiently and reliably get offerings into the market.  We've also talked about how different people, and different thought processes lend themselves to achieving these goals. 

What we haven't talked about is how the different processes should enable people to best do their work.  This is where we often see culture clashes in companies who try to standardize performance objectives based on discipline when they should be targeted to the overall objectives they are tasked with achieving.  Let's see how this plays out by examining some common process elements and seeing how they differ between the innovation and development processes.

The complexity of the development process can best be defined by the sheer number of tasks, functions, and people that must be managed.  It is often a project manager's sole job to coordinate and keep track of everything that must happen.  This person also communicates the interrelations between the tasks required of different functions so that the team can proceed toward the goal.  For this reason, quality of work is evaluated based on whether or not the team members complete their required tasks efficiently and according to schedule.  There are well defined parameters for the completion of tasks to hit project milestones.  In fact, every task is planned and scheduled before the project starts, and the project operates under the assumption that when all tasks are completed, the project is done.  As can be expected, the planning process is very involved, but this typically happens once, when the process is being initially determined.  After that, most projects are similar to the first and can follow predictably along the same steps. So, it can be said that the purpose of the development process is to ensure that human error can be engineered out of the system.

The complexity of the innovation process can best be defined by the fact that the team typically has no idea what the tasks should be at the beginning of the project.  This team is guided by an overarching goal, and needs to be flexible and creative enough to do whatever tasks are necessary to collect the information that will help to achieve it.  The fact that a set of tasks worked on the last project may be useful knowledge, but it is certainly not a roadmap for the next project which will have a different overarching goal.  For this reason it is difficult, if not impossible, to map a process step-by-step for a person outside the work process to plan, manage, and communicate.  Quality of work is evaluated on whether or not each person is able to construct logic and create solid rationale leading to recommendations, making sure to voice any logic breaches that come up so that the team can step back and address them.  Milestones are certainly helpful, but they are more useful for the team to structure their thinking, and less useful to determine tasks.  At the end of the day, it can be said that the purpose of the innovation processes is to ensure that intuitive leaps are made transparent, able to be evaluated, and that recommendations can be presented in such a way that the rest of the organization can make use of them.

Think about how your company's development and innovation processes.  Are they different?  Do they try to achieve different goals while using a similar process?

A few posts ago, I talked about how an organization's development and innovation processes should be different, as they have different goals.  I then talked about how differences in perceptual skills are better determinants of successfull innovators than the organizational discipline in which they reside.  At this point it may be useful to step back and look at the fundamental differences in the thought processes that enable people to be successful in the development and innovation processes.

As the development process requires a high degree of reliability and certainty, thought processes that involve inductive and deductive reasoning are most appropriate.  Inductive reasoning determines rules by moving from specifics to generalities.  For example, if every time we touch ice it is cold, we can then make a rule that all ice is cold.  Deductive reasoning determines conclusions by moving from generalities to specifics.  For example, if we know that all ice is cold and we are told that an object is made of ice, we conclude that the object will be cold.  Both of these types of reasoning work hand-in--hand, and can be proven or disproven by observing or experiencing additional examples.

In contrast, the innovation process requires the creation of highly plausible hypotheses and solutions that are not readily observed or experienced - at least not in the current context.  The thought processes most applicable in these circumstances are abductive and adductive reasoning.  These types of reasoning require that intuition and creativity are applied to observed and experienced facts.

Abductive reasoning determines plausible hypotheses.  For example, abductive reasoning would be used to determine hypotheses for why ice would be cold.  Further investigation beyond external observation would be required to prove or disprove each hypothesis proposed.  Adductive reasoning determines plausible solutions.  For example, depending upon why ice is cold, we may develop new solutions for how to make ice.  Each solution would need to be tested through experimentation.  Both of these types of reasoning also work hand-in-hand.

We can see how different types of reasoning are applicable in different situations.  We can also see how different types of reasoning are important in any functional discipline in an organization.  Both innovation and development groups need multidisciplinary teams. When selecting people to work in either group, it's much more important to assess how they approach identifying and solving problems than which discipline they come from. 

I've been reading several articles lately that discuss different processes for innovation.  They typically center around a few main themes; ethnography, rapid prototyping, open innovation, and other ways to connect market insight with opportunities for new offerings.  And yet when I talk with clients who have tried similar processes, I get mixed responses regarding the results.  Most can point to isolated events that would not have occurred without the new process, but none can say that these processes have increased their ability to consistently connect opportunities for new offerings with the market they are intended to satisfy. 

I'm actually not surprised when I hear this.  Over the past few years I've come to the realization that there is a big, pink elephant in the room regarding innovation processes.  That pink elephant is the fact that some people are better at making non-linear connections between disparate disciplines than others.  Why does this typically go unsaid?  Because the perceptual skills required to make these connections are difficult to identify, define, and measure, let alone codify into a bullet-point job description.  However, everyone perceives the world differently, and better descriptions of process will not turn a linear thinker into a non-linear thinker.

Think of it this way.  No one would argue that everyone has different levels of physical ability.  I can swim, but if I was standing next to Michael Phelps, we wouldn't need to be near the water for anyone to guess who could swim faster.  That's because physical differences are observable, definable, and we can easily measure the results of the output.  Differences in perceptual skill are invisible, but that doesn't mean they aren't real.  The problem is that most organizational processes have been designed to take the human variable out of the system.  In terms of development and other day-to-day processes I think this is a good thing.  But it just doesn't work for developing breakthrough innovations that will connect with the market.

In the next few posts, I'll be reviewing best practices I've developed to identify the right types of perceptual skills for innovation, and connecting them to different disciplinary skills.  For now, start noticing how different people in your company perceive the world around them.  You may be surprised at what you see when you really start looking.

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.