As in many other aspects, theory and practice, understood as implementation of what has been devised, do not go hand in hand with innovation. The first part (conception and theoretical development of the process or innovative product) with being meritorious, is not enough to consider the process as completed. It is necessary to close the loop and put it into practice, make it materialize in something concrete. This is the real challenge in every project.
How to make innovation happen
If we understand as innovation any project or action that is started by a company, person or agent with an uncertain result, we can affirm that the innovative potential resides in all areas.
Limiting ourselves to the business field, it should be noted that companies, as a general rule, are not specifically designed to be innovative (they may be to generate benefits, improve the environment, create jobs, contribute to improving the social climate,…), but rare time to be expressly innovative.
According to professors Vijay Govindarajan and Chris Trimble, from the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College, in their book "The other side of innovation" innovation requires combining discipline (I would add, also, method of work) and accountability to all levels.
Now, when companies succeed, they tend to act as "performance engines." And here the tension between short-termism (generation of business results that allow it to work and endure) and the innovative vision begins to emerge. When a company establishes its procedures and is successful, it tries to make its daily operations repeatable, predictable, disciplined and efficient. This makes it difficult to generate change or accept the risks of an innovation initiative that could take time to show its value. In short, success somewhat hinders change and therefore the implementation of innovation, change to achieve improvements and progress, and conflict is generated.
The contrast between the two worlds is clear: while regular operations incorporate 90% information and 10% uncertainty, innovative initiatives bring 10% information and 90% uncertainty. How difficult and worthwhile to undertake, especially in times of success!
According to the mentioned authors, it is necessary to follow a series of phases that help in the materialization of innovation:
- Divide the work Form dedicated teams Manage the association Formalize the experiment Break down the hypotheses Seek the truth Advance and ascend
1. Divide the work
The authors recommend creating dedicated, flexible, and full-time teams working on a project and combining them with part-time staff, who are in charge of keeping the "performance engine" that is, routine, recurring, and successful tasks continuing. In other words, it would be a matter of combining the available means to advance in a balanced way in both directions: the short-term one, maintaining what is done well and the long-term one, including new initiatives that contribute to guaranteeing the future.
2. Build dedicated teams
When forming them, there is a risk of repeating within this mini-unit the same organizational and cultural schemes of the "parent" company. The risk of the “organizational memory” being imposed is high (same roles, same evaluation criteria… To break it, it is also convenient to hire new people and incorporate them into the project. following new guidelines.
3. Lead the association
The leader of the innovative group must be able to win the complicity of those responsible for the "performance engine", avoiding possible points of friction. These refer to competition for scarce resources in the organization, divided attention from shared staff, and lack of harmony in the association.
Usually double entry organizational schemes, that is, those in which there are shared personnel in several projects subject to the guidelines of two different units, are really difficult to carry out successfully.
I remember a case of implantation in a financial institution of results measurement by offices (unit contribution of each office to the general income statement measured by criteria of operational accounting) combined with commercial objectives imposed by the commercial management. Office managers were subject to frequently conflicting criteria and objectives. On the one hand, generating more benefits (this would be equivalent in our case to reinforcing the "performance engine") and on the other, increasing the placement of certain products (some little known, not demanded and relatively innovative in the profile of customers served). The scheme did not work operationally and in a relatively short time it was replaced by another one-way loss.
In sum, it is possible (and necessary) to try to materialize innovative designs in concrete, measurable experiences within the organization, following specific methods for it, although the process is complex and is not without difficulties to overcome.
4. Formalize the experiment
The fact of formalizing the experiment, is related to doing the experimentation in a disciplined and methodical way, following a series of predesigned guidelines and aimed at achieving new processes or innovative products. Deep down, it might almost seem like a contradiction. Intuitively, innovation could be thought of as coming from the random combination of factors where “the flute plays by chance”. Nothing further from that randomness. Innovation is linked to a systematic approach and to obtaining lessons from the actions undertaken. So,The authors argue that innovation leaders should try to come up with a very specific way of learning and turn speculative predictions (that is, what is thought to happen in advance of the actions taken) into consistent and reliable forecasts.
Learning is the most important thing and it is not possible to leave it to chance, so the innovators must constantly compare what they thought was going to happen with what really happened and draw conclusions from the comparison.
I think this passage by J. Martínez Aldanondo, about the lessons learned, highlights the importance of learning:
"The earthquake of 27-F 2010 and the plane crash of the Juan Fernández Island. Both misfortunes have been thoroughly examined, gutting down to the smallest detail and apparently nothing has been left out of the voracious public scrutiny…… However, recognizing how important it is to rigorously clarify what happened in both cases, I do not see that the same is being provided Attention to the most important factor of all: What did we learn from the 2 catastrophes? Since it is no longer possible to change what happened, all efforts should be focused on preventing it from happening again, on ensuring that the same mistakes are not made again. It is no secret that one of the greatest risks for Chile is being affected by a new earthquake and, as we wrote 2 years ago,If something is irrefutable, it is that with each day that passes, less is needed to happen. How can we be sure that we will not make the same mistakes again? Unfortunately, we cannot. No matter how many expert commissions have been formed or how many reports and conclusions have been written, we will only answer questions when the next earthquake occurs. My concern does not seem artificial. Recent statements by a general who actively participated in earthquake response efforts acknowledge that little progress has been made or learned. We are taking a huge risk but no one seems to be concerned. Also, while a devastating crisis is ravaging Spain, the worst that can happen is that the day that light finally appears at the end of the tunnel,we have not agreed on the lessons that we should never forget. ”
A failed innovation that generates clear lessons is a foundation for the future, while a failed innovation, quickly forgotten is only a failure.
I believe that this is a tremendously constructive approach to the systematized and protocolized task of innovation. Doing it with a positive spirit, trying to consciously learn the deep reasons why the expected results have not been obtained in each phase, is the best way to contribute incremental developments to the process and to avoid future failed actions, based on previous experience..
5. Break down the hypotheses
The formalization of the experiment involves specifying the assumptions and starting hypotheses, beyond the numerical square in which the processes sometimes become. It is about clearly defining cause-effect relationships as the central point of shared reflection. This process can serve to identify in advance the so-called "critical unknowns", that is, the poor results that can lead to greater problems.
Experience teaches us that most problems derive not so much from being spoiled in their execution, but rather from something that nobody foresaw. Hence the tendency to blame wrong process executions instead of wrong starting assumptions. It is very common to hear “we have done it wrong for and because of this; if we had done it well the result would be different ”. In other words, the execution process is questioned, not the hypotheses on which it is based.
6. Seek the truth
This phase refers to "we have won" and "they have lost", when it is our team that wins or loses respectively. Something similar can happen in systematized innovation processes. The interpretation of the results obtained is crucial and must be as objective and courageous as possible. Courage is needed to admit errors of principle, execution, or both that have distanced the results obtained from those expected. The opposite is detrimental to the credibility of the team that carries out the innovation.
Hence, accountability must extend not only to the results but also to the actions undertaken (did you do what you said you were going to do?) And to the learning process (did you conduct a disciplined experiment?).
7. Advance and ascend
The authors argue that it is necessary to fight against the myths of innovation. For example, "innovation is only about ideas." It is true that a prior conceptual and reflective process is required, but it is necessary to execute them. Without execution, innovation disappears.
Other times innovation is mistakenly associated with the figure of a superman. This is not the case, when there is a good team that is well oriented and directed towards clear and shared goals. The properly organized collective approach always exceeds individual results, no matter how powerful the contrast person.
The final recommendation refers to the need to try to embed innovation in the very structure of the organization through a “personalized approach”, trying to ensure that it is assumed by its members.
