How To Farm Lightning™: sustainable innovation

Why social media for the ageing exec?

2009-08-20T19:07:00.002+02:00

Colleague and associate Brad Matthews asked the question so here is my list; what are yours? Please add......

1. Naturally inquisitive and open to new anything
2. Just a bit geekish…
3. Prefer to make own decisions about relevance and use of new things
4. Fear of being left behind
5. Wanting to connect with younger peers, staff or children
6. See the potential to improve the way they work or the way their organisation operates
7. Recognise limitations of email (no history, transparency, one to one or one to few, closed, targeted etc)
8. Thought leader looking for new channels to lead
9. Looking for inspiration, being challenged, new contacts for any reason
10. Bored
11. Want to control its use in their organisation
12. Recognise the limitations of existing communications channels
13. Their dog is more techno-savvy than they are
14. They recognise that existing knowledge and systems do not capture the value of conversations ie they are ‘off balance sheet’
15. A way to reach-out to peers beyond their industry
16. Fear of being left behind as the circus you know moves out of town
17. Word of Mouse replaces Word of mouth
18. Virtual business model breaks down through lack of trust - Social Media to the resue?
19. ???

Looking for rural comms challenges in Africa!

2009-07-26T18:04:00.002+02:00

I'm looking for help to shape and focus this project for Science for Humanity, details at http://scienceforhumanity.ning.com/group/rodboroughradio.

If you have any NGO contacts in Africa or other developing markets looking for solutions to rural comms problems then let me or Anu Devi (Project Coordinator) at Science for Humanity know!

Managing beyond Web 2.0 Companies should prepare now for the day when Web 2.0 morphs into Web 3.0.

2009-07-20T17:22:00.000+02:00

I posted this comment in response to "Managing beyond Web 2.0 - Companies should prepare now for the day when Web 2.0 morphs into Web 3.0" on McKinsey Quarterly.

"One only needs to see the impact of failing to react to incorrect allegations spread by the web by reading this WSJ article published today (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/50815,news,iran-nokia-boycott-may-be-unjustified-mobile-phone-freedom-speech-tehran-surveillance) and concerning Nokia Siemens Networks alleged complicity in providing technology subsequently used by the Iranian state to track and suppress dissent. The most telling remark is at the very end from Ben Roome, a spokesman for Nokia Siemens Networks (Head of Media Relations according to his LinkedIn profile) , “Our failure to kill that speculation at the outset has obviously led to a lot of concern about our work in Iran." Interestingly, Ben is a frequent Twitterer on this very issue as well as others re his interests and employment but when it comes to establishing the facts it is clear that it takes more than a web 2.0 channel and a lone voice to correct a flawed perception spread by that very same channel. It requires the organisation behind the spokesman to react in web 2.0 time and display a level of focus, imagination and determination previously unimagined and this is clearly not the strength of most industrial-era organisations past their sell-by date (especially B2B). Bringing them into the world of web 2.0 poses many challenges and no amount of PR sticking plaster will hide the fact that they are not organisationally designed to compete in this accelerated post-industrial era."

RE-IMAGINING INNOVATION: HOLD THE SCIENTISTS AND BRING ON THE PRACTITIONERS

2009-06-25T17:17:00.000+02:00

I posted this comment in response to this piece in the Ivey Business Journal, RE-IMAGINING INNOVATION: HOLD THE SCIENTISTS AND BRING ON THE PRACTITIONERS by Declan Jordan

"Declan seems to argue that large-scale investment in technology innovation by public agencies and government does not positively impact businesses and could be better focused to do so. This may well be the case in Ireland (and elsewhere) but I think there is a danger that the technology-led innovation baby is thrown out with the enterprise promotion and growth bathwater. The linkage between the two is worthy of clarification and may lead to a better understanding of how best to promote enterprise. But it is important to understand that we need more, not less, “techno-fetishism” and large scale public and enterprise scientific investment in the future if we are to address the large-scale problems posed by climate change, renewable energy, population aging, pandemics, widening global inequality, 9 billion mouths to feed in 2050 etc etc.

It is also worth noting that in the USA and the rest of Europe (if not Ireland) almost all businesses have been doing to varying degrees exactly what Declan proposes for the last 10 years i.e. listening to and engaging contributions from managers, salespeople and customers, increasingly via the Internet. This is not to be discouraged and I am sure we will see this trend continue as the connectivity internet technologies enable within and outside the enterprise improve and the principles of more ‘open’ innovation involving all stakeholders gains ground in more conservative industries.

However, it can be argued that this focusing on the ‘edge’ of the organisation for innovation insights and activity has led to a move away from internal R&D and created a problem we have today of a vast increase in ‘me too’ and low-value innovations and a dearth of radical or breakthrough innovation focused on solving real problems or moving the goal posts. This trend may also reflect an increased risk-averseness in enterprises (partly due to the dominance of the CFO and their inappropriate financial metrics) as well as ignorance as to the role, value and processes of innovation and the implications for its long term absence. If this trend continues unabated then maybe we will see a permanent shift in the innovation eco-system where all meaningful research is publicly funded or in partnership with the private sectors with the role of commercial enterprise innovation limited to connecting, listening & adapting rather than risking the innovation journey itself?"

Vodafone Receiver N°22 - Seizing the moment: The lamp posts on Brick Lane

2009-05-26T16:50:00.000+02:00

A comment on Vodafone's Receiver N°22 article "Seizing the Moment: The Lamp Posts on Brick Lane"

"I work in the innovation space and one related observation I have is the correlation of our increased connectedness on our expectations of and appetite for radical innovation.

As the article points-out, email, texts and Twitter ‘demand’ a response and demand it ‘now’ and this pressure to respond can be to the detriment of considered thought and result. One trend in innovation for the last 10 years or so has been away from radical and longer-term innovation that requires significant time and money (but therefore high risk) towards shorter term more evolutionary innovation with lower risks and clearer, shorter-term payback.

There may be several reasons for this increased ‘risk averseness’ and short-termism (which can be observed elsewhere in society, especially politics) including market de-regulation, increased competition as a result of globalisation, more demanding stock holders, a bonus culture that rewards the short-term and reduced public investment in fundamental (long-term) research. But at a personal level I have also witnessed how much more difficult it seems to be to get individuals engaged in corporate innovation activities to ‘disengage’ from the present in order to conceive of radically different futures and more radical innovations.

There appears to be both more reluctance to do this now than there used to be, an increased unwillingness to live with the uncertainty and lack of an ‘answer’ or a clear response that this process necessarily entails. There is a palpable desire to retreat back to their more ‘transactional’ comfort zone of question or statement/response ie the answer is ‘out there’ if we could only access it and its frustrating not to be able to do so, there is no simple response.

Does our increased connectedness have any bearing on this observation? Have we become less open to embrace and live with uncertainty as a result of increased connectedness and is this more disturbing than enlivening? Does our increased connectedness have deeper ramifications for the way we think and perceive the world and is there a danger they accelerate ‘short-termism’ and therefore our ability to make the more considered and radical changes needed, in politics and society as well as corporate innovation? I appreciate hearing your experience and views."

Are the dynamics of innovation changing?

2009-07-26T17:44:00.002+02:00

A comment I posted in response to MIT's Sloan Management Review article entitled "Are the dynamics of innovation changing?"

"Our work at Brendan Dunphy Associates is predominantly with corporations in the ICT space in Europe and I would give a qualified “yes” to the second question. I think it is clear that the work of Christensen has increased awareness at the leadership level of the challenges they face when it comes to instigating radical innovation. However, this awareness is rarely acted upon with the result that they still struggle to create an environment that is capable of generating disruptive innovation. There appear to be a number of deep-seated reasons for this associated with their personal & corporate attitude to risk & reward, inappropriate culture and behaviour and the sheer difficulty of envisaging and effecting the scale of change required without disrupting the current operational efficiency of the business and short-term goals. Partnership, ventures and acquisitions are a typical response to increase innovation capacity and ‘import innovation’ but success is very patchy given the lack of knowledge and discipline as to how best do integrate and nurture these activities.

If, as the article suggests, the bigger challenges we face require ‘boundary busting’ only possible via larger organisations (and public bodies?) then we are certainly going to need significant innovations in innovation to make this a reality given the differing cultures, language, traditions and business models this will entail.

Maybe we can learn from the application and adoption of Disruptive Innovation theory to better understand the practical constraints corporations pose to any innovation theory and thus better help them assess the both the opportunities on offer and develop the new innovation capabilities that will be necessary to thrive in the future?"

Innovation briefs....

2009-01-04T23:06:00.007+01:00

The Guardian highlighted innovations in cement in "Revealed: The cement that eats carbon dioxide" but a closer look reveals that the UK cement industry is far from optimistic about its future....

I came across Afri Gadget somehow or other and was struck by how simple innovation can be. Sometimes it is too easy to assume innovation is about big bucks, IP and complexity but maybe it is wise to return to basics, at least now and again? In Africa there is often no alternative....

Innovation is also a strong theme at Timbukto Chronicles - "A view of Africa and Africans with a focus on entrepreneurship, innovation, technology, practical remedies and other self sustaining activities by Emeka Okafor" - take a look and leave a comment for Emeka, TED (You Tube for the brain...) Africa Director...

And finaly in this brief round-up of my innovation surfing, take a look at my post at the Science for Humanity forum on the value and challenges for cellular mobile in Africa - there is hope!

Consumer & Business Trends.....

2008-04-04T11:49:00.004+02:00

If you want to keep one eye on what's happening out there but have little time to surf, search or sift I recommend the guys at Springwise. They have a network of 8,000 spotters and an excellent free online database of global trends organisaed by industry sector; it doesn't come easier than this!

Massively Muliplayer Games take-over where Gaming leaves off...

2008-09-11T20:25:00.002+02:00

World Without Oil (WWO) is a great example of a new generation of ‘massively multiplayer’ collaborative games that utilise several communication tools in the pursuit of entertainment and learning.

It demonstrates the possibilities to use existing technologies in more creative ways, to leverage dispersed knowledge and collaborate to understand complex problems whilst having fun at the same time.

World without Oil sits at the convergence of gaming, social networking, communities and scenarios. It moves gaming on from its traditional dependence on a single proprietary platform, whether Sony’s, Microsoft’s or Nintendo’s by leveraging many communication options and scaling beyond the sofa.

WWO enables player’s to explore, learn and deal with a fictitious but plausible scenario – in this case a world without oil. Its genetics are more those of mass-collaboration, mobs and the open culture of the internet than gaming. It deviates from the gaming roadmap and evolutionary innnovation curve, eschewing improving graphics, machine-human interaction and entertainment, which together both define and limit gaming’s marketplace and audience today.

WWO did not emerge from a gaming studio. It is not an evolution of gaming but rather an attempt to apply social media to create new games, games that free player’s from the sofa and appeal to a new audience with a new agenda.

WWO heads in another direction, focusing on the ability to connect large numbers of individuals interested in better understanding a real-world issue and moving out from behind the 3rd screen and console in order to play it.

So What

As posted here, web 2.0 technologies and social networking seems to be lacking compelling applications beyond the core of ‘my network’, picture and video sharing and personal profiling and dating.

WWO provides something that many social networking and gaming platforms seem to lack, a reason to connect beyond entertainment and the trivia that dominates web 2.0 a turn-off for many.

WWO has led the way and others are imminent with the Institute For The Future’s SUPERSTRUCT due in late September. Every school, university and engaged citizen and campaign can benefit from these Massively Multiplayer Games that are set to engage and entertain in equal measure and in ways that will change both the scope and focus of gaming forever.

Tools - Appreciative Inquiry

2008-03-15T10:20:00.006+01:00

Thanks to Geof Cox of New Directions ) for his presentation on ‘Appreciative Inquiry’ on Monday of last week. It is yet another tool relevant to creating the necessary mindset for innovative thinking so necessary in many organisations today. More on Appreciative Inquiry at http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/intro/whatisai.cfm and Geof's site at (http://www.newdirections.uk.com/), where I recommend you subscribe to his "Cuttings" newsletter.

There is also a video on You Tube from NESTA (http://www.nesta.org/.uk) that very much supports some of the observations and insights we generated during an exercise of the application of AI but in the context of ‘co-creation’ and ‘innovation’.

FYI, NESTA is a lottery-funded UK government initiate (£400million I believe!) focused on researching, stimulating and developing innovation in the UK creative industries as a part of the government’s strategy to ensure the UK continues as a globally recognised centre for creativity. A lot of this focus is about innovation beyond the traditional boundaries, in the community, socially oriented and highly collaborative. Their site is well worth a visit and a slightly different and useful perspective from most corporate takes on the subject of innovation. Enjoy!

Tools - management tool box

2008-04-08T13:57:00.001+02:00

Need to understand a management, personal development or organisational tool or technique? Looking to network with others to share insights on their use or simply looking to increase your analysis and problem solving skills? Take a look at 12 Manage. I have been using Jaap's site for several years and its probably the best source of tools & techniques I have found and excellent value for money. There is a free version to get you going. Thank you Jaap!

Tool - 7 sources of innovation

2008-04-11T14:38:00.007+02:00

Peter Drucker (one of my first and favourite management gurus) wrote that there are seven sources of innovation. Here they are, in reverse order of importance:

7. New technology and scientific findings
6. Changes in public perception
5. Demographic changes
4. Industry market and structures
3. Process needs
2. Incongruities
1. The unexpected

So What?

The first 6 all offer opportunities for observers and trend spotters to discern a gap between what is offered today and what the market truly needs. As markets evolve more quickly (e.g. through de-regulation or changing consumer priorities) so the gap grows and the opportunites for innovation increases. Even in today's recessionary inclined markets, there is not a shortgae of opportunity, just a shortgae of innovation capability; the skills, knowledge, processes and tools to "farm lightning".

Disrupting Mobile innovation?

2008-08-18T18:05:00.005+02:00

As this article in Spiegel Online International states, the mobile industry is about to be disrupted again; Swedish-Indian private start-up VNL intends to launch its low-cost and energy efficient base station for the “next billion mobile users”.

Whilst consumers in the West salivate at the latest Apple iPhone the less glamorous network equipment sector that powers the networks is focused elsewhere. Growth in emerging and developing markets drives the majority of new sales today, but at prices that leave little margin for the struggling vendors or truly satisfy the needs of local operators.

VNL sees opportunity to address the next billion mobile users and in so doing “disrupt” the leading mobile telco vendors of Ericsson, Nokia Siemens and Alcatel Lucent and their more price competitive Chinese competitors Huwai and ZTE.

They aim to do this via their solar-powered network base station specifically designed to meet emerging market needs. More energy-efficient, simpler to install and easier to maintain than today's offering, they hope to open-up the market to more low-end growth so network operators can be profitable with revenues of a few dollars per subscriber rather than $5-$10 today.

If delivered as conceived, VNL will under-cut current offerings by a least a third and maybe much more. They will enable networks to be installed and operated at lower costs and in places with no grid electricity or need for increasingly expensive diesel for generators. They aim to drive demand in rural and impoverished areas across India and elsewhere. Not only will this improve the quality of life for millions but it will drive GDP growth and encourage enterprise and development, as mobile penetration has already demonstrated in many emerging markets (see the GSM Association for further details).

So What?

For students of innovation, VNL's solution could be a classic example of 'disruptive innovation'. On the one hand such disruptive innovation can expand a market by lowering the cost for Customers for whom the current solution is too expensive. At the same time it can more cost-efficiently (and environmentally in this case) meet the basic needs of existing Customers for whom current solutions are both too sophisticated and too expensive, discouraging usage and adoption.

The potential for such “two-sided" disruptive innovation in emerging markets is significant. We will surely see examples in other industry’s as the limitations of products adapted from Western designs and dependent on Western infrastructure, support and resources reach their natural limits but fail to address the real needs of billions.

Can Western firms react quickly enough to address this market themselves, and should they? Are they willing to disrupt and cannibalise their own existing businesses and product lines in order to do this? And are they willing to concede direction and control to emerging market subsidiaries and local R&D or will it be left to company’s such as VNL to disrupt in the future?

No financial, commercial or client interest to declare.

Sustainability & Sustainablity - a love hate relationship?

2008-09-09T13:49:00.004+02:00

I made the comment below in response to a post on Innovation by SIT, "Sustainability & Sustainablity - a love hate relationship?", original post can be viwed here.

"Whilst accepting that “innovation” & “sustainability” are overly-used and misunderstood buzzwords I have to admit not to seeing them in any way in conflict or pulling a business in opposite directions as you seem to imply. For me, the sustainability agenda is another ‘driver’ for innovation and joins the classics already established - Social, Technology and Economic. It is simply another factor in the innovation equation and yes, it may thus further complicate innovation decisions and priorities but it does not fundamentally change anything about the innovation process.

I think your assumption that innovation always requires ‘more’ and is therefore in conflict with sustainability a false one; the conflict is more between sustainability and traditional patterns of ‘consumption’ (consumerism and related business model where more and bigger is better) rather than innovation, which is only a means to an end, whatever end we desire and define.

If we add ‘Re-think’ to the beginning of the 3 R’s sustainability mantra (Reduce, Reuse & Recycle) then maybe we have a more positive context within which to innovate sustainably? Give that many costs for existing product’s are “external” to the price paid i.e. not factored into the cost of production and sale price, then going even further and starting with ‘Re-costing’ existing product’s may help to create the oft missing burning platform necessary to spur sustainable innovation.

Both innovation and sustainability suffer from relative ‘newness’ compared to other disciplines and activities and therefore lack clarity and I think this is the key challenge for many individuals and firm’s. I have always believed that “less is more” applies to innovation so I guess sustainability just confirms me in that belief!"

Interface CEO Ray Anderson's Sustainability Vision

2008-04-12T17:19:00.002+02:00

Interface contract carpets are often cited as a sustainability leader and here CEO Ray Anderson presents his sustanability vision. Skip to 04.00 for his address to other CEO's if you don't have time for the full 10 mins.

So What?

It is refreshing to see a CEO take responsibility and admit to the historical role of business and industry in creating the mess we are in. We in business need to accept our part and move on to solving the problems we have helped to create; too many CEO's are still in denial and whilst they are we will not see the scale of change required to create a sustainable future; Power to you and your message Ray!

"Cradle to Cradle" book review...

2008-03-16T21:56:00.015+01:00

Cradle to Cradle is a manifesto for the new consumer - a mall-nirvana of non toxic products, endlessly `up-cycled' and replaceable; sustainability without the need to change our consuming habits.

Shrugging off alternative strategies as too dour and depressing, the authors put their faith in the belief that we can design our way out of the current predicament of toxic and crude products and create a virtuous circle of product creation, use and "up-cycling" to preserve precious resources and reduce our impact on the planet.

This is an appealing vision and one has to admire the work of co-authors Bill and Michael over many years in developing and testing their theory. But I was left more than a little disappointed as I realised not just the practical limits of their approach but also the philosophy that seemed to underlie their proposition.

This is a manifesto for accelerated consumerism, an evolutionary attempt to overcome the problems we have created through ignorance and myopia. At no point do the authors seem to question the wisdom of consumerism in a shrinking world or its instant appeal and ramifications for a global population of almost 7billion today and maybe 9 billion by 2050.

Maybe I was expecting too much, but even if every product complied with the cradle-to-cradle philosophy we would still be an awfully long way from a sustainable, let alone just world. I can't help but feel that even if the Cradle-to-Cradle philosophy was able to generate the abundance of endlessly re-cycled products it proposes, we will still require a more fundamental appraisal of why we want so much `stuff' we do not need in the first place, regardless of how it is designed and produced.

I am reminded of the Irish farmer's response to the request for directions from a lost tourist, "Well, if I was you, I wouldn't be starting out from here." Making existing product's more eco-friendly and efficient sounds a very worthy goal but maybe the first question we should be asking is, "Do we really need them in the first place?"

Who owns your home?

2008-01-28T10:18:00.002+01:00

Innovation Trends spurred by Sustainability....

"Product Service Systems (PSS) – the introduction of taxi cabs is an early incarnation of the PSS model and 'Software-as-a-Service' a more recent one. Here multiple customers share a resource to save money, increase access, and, increasingly, to reduce their carbon footprint. This approach is increasingly gaining ground within the business mainstream. It draws on the growing convergence of "services" (e.g. bank accounts), which are becoming increasingly productised, and "products" (e.g. printers) which have a growing "service" dimension. In many cases, the value of this element eclipses the value of the manufactured product itself. The "car clubs" which are appearing in many cities exemplify this concept. Rather than owning cars outright, members "share" the use of a single vehicle. Fuel, maintenance, insurance, vehicle tax and other expenses are covered by the service provider, and subscribers pay a small monthly subscription, as well as hiring fees based on the duration of the loan and mileage. Thus, a single manufactured item facilitates the growth of multiple business models." Source: http://www.biggerthinking.com/docs/en/a_new_mindset_white_paper.pdf

So What?

Who owns your house, your car? Is it you, the bank or the finance company? The definition of "ownership" has and is changing and in many instances is more accuratley "control" rather than "ownership", as with your home loan or car-finance plan. In Spain and Japan 50 year mortahges are common and 100 year mortages on the horizon as house prices escalate beyond the reach of the majority.

The key challenge of "shared asset" business models (which are not new) such as car pooling is to be able to convince the sharers that they still "control" the asset in question i.e. it is there solely for them and the other sharers are rendered invisible. This is important in thecontext of sustainability as the model is not primarilly about saving money, but rather the social and environmental impacts of the product's production, usage and life.

I do not think this challenge is unsurmountable but has received little attention from those in marketing and advertising that can help to create this illusion just as they do everyday for more traditional products and ways of doing business. I think I feel an email on its way to Rory at Ogilvy....

Please, no business-as-usual....

2008-02-04T19:38:00.001+01:00

Collaborative and industry-wide responses to the growing sustainability agenda are appearing by the day, as this Business Week article identifies. On the surface they seem to make sense but dig a little deeper and they can be seen for what they are - a fear-driven and defensive strategy in the face of impending disruption. They are designed to maintain the status quo and the predictability stakeholders seek against what otherwise would be a major opportunity for increased competition within the industry or externally-driven disruption from outside.

The business models and product lines of many industries (think automotive as an example) have long exceeded their ‘sell-by date’ and require massive disruptive innovation in order to meet the future transportation needs of the planet and in a sustainable fashion. The same is true of almost all other industry business models conceived in the ‘industrial era’, a pre-sustainability era where waste and inefficiency is acceptable because the market can bear it and the 'consumer is king'.

Just as a "rising tide lifts all ships", so these well-meaning but naive government and NGO-aided and abetted industry initiatives will only serve to rise and sustain the very business models, thinking and attitudes that have got us into this position in the first place. Even worse, these initiatives will serve to kill, delay or obscure the sort of radical innovations we truly require in order to meet the global challenge of sustainability and ensure it benefits not just developed, but emerging and survival economies as well.

Existing corporate leaders fear these fundamental shifts in the competitive landscape more than they fear their existing competitors; they would rather cooperate with the 'devil they know' than risk the consequences of termination in what they increasingly recognise as a major challenge to ‘business as usual’.

This does not mean that all such initiatives should be discouraged but rather that policy-makers and NGO's should recognise them for what they are - the corporate king has no sustainable clothes. The focus needs to be longer-term and we need to recognise the short shelf-life of these collaborations and the need for more radical innovations in industry structures, business models and markets if we are to succeed. In this domain, like all others, disruptive innovatuon will not be from within.

1kW.h saved= 3 kW.h generated

2008-03-18T11:32:00.007+01:00

I came across this factoid courtesy of a Schneider Electric presentation.

Did you know this? I certainly did not.

Further research revealed that this is probably a worst case scenario but not untypical for electricity generated in conventional power plants that have no way to re-use the heat generated along with the electricity. The heat goes to waste (hence cooling towers etc).

More modern plants may be combined heat and power and efficiency rates increase from around 33% (hence the factoid) to around 65-90%.

In the USA less than 10% of power plants are combined. In addition, 5-10% of energy is lost in transmission before it reaches your home due to "bottlenecks" and other factors.

So What?

You may only be saving 50 or a 100 Watts by switcing to a low energy bulb but at the power plant this ramps upto 3x your saving in terms of energy that does not need to be generated.

At a time the UK government is mistakenly comissioning a new coal-fired power station in Kent maybe this factoid ought to be better known and used to help drive energy efficiency? Lets start with the UK government; Dear Mr Brown....

Repercussions....?

2008-01-23T09:50:00.001+01:00

"The reputation of Japan's paper industry lay in tatters today after the market leader, Oji Paper, admitted it had lied for more than a decade about the volume of recycled paper used in some of its products............." says the article available from the title link above.

So What?

This will be an interesting case and have big repercussions both inside and outside of Japan. As product labelling develops to incorporate statements of content related to Corporate Sustainability and marketing policies (fair trade, re-cycling etc) so the need to understand the commercial and consumer impact of non-compliance will grow. How many corporates have their finger on this pulse?

Davos bun fest dishes the dirt....

2008-01-23T10:02:00.001+01:00

"Awards shine spotlight on big business green record" from the Guardian.

"The corporation judged to have wreaked the most social and ecological damage is
to be named and shamed at the Public Eye awards tomorrow. Three companies have
been shortlisted this year: the French state nuclear company Areva,
multinational German chemical company Bayer CropScience and the Philippine
subsidiary of US fruit company Dole Foods."

So What?

This event cincides (coincidentally?) with the annual Davos summit and shines a different light on the role of globalised big business. I am sure the CSR departments at these 3 firms will be having a few sleepless nights, deserved or otherwise.

Blue Ocean strategy and the Nissan Qashqai

2008-07-07T12:25:00.004+02:00

Dan Blank posted on Blue Ocean strategy last week and its relevance to his industry, publishing. Here is my comment in reponse:

A good practical example of this thinking in practice that may help understanding is the Nissan Qashqai. I attended a Frost & Sullivan Ltd “Best Practice in Innovation Management in the Automotive Industry” workshop in Munich last week and the Qashqai was presented by Mr Hideto Murakami (Senior VP Nissan Europe R&D and Head of Total Customer Satisfaction division) as an example of “opportunity is in the gaps” ; this relates to the ‘blue ocean’ theory you describe.

Nissan’s market research indicated there was an unaddressed market space between conventional 4x4’s and other categories of vehicles. In essence, this segment was those customers’ that liked the styling of 4x4’s but wanted a smaller, easier to drive, more stable and fuel efficient alternative – the Qashqai was born (in Paddington, London in fact, built in Sunderland, UK).

Blue Ocean strategy demands a deep understanding of existing and potential customers (non consumers) as well as how existing products and services are actually used, why they are purchased or not etc. In my experience most firms, eve large ones, do not have this understanding and if they do they often lack the ability to turn these insights into desirable and profitable products, as their processes are inappropriate, designed for a different product era.

The Qashqai has several technological innovations ( eg the muffler is designed to act like an aerofoil to provide better traction) but of more interest to this discussion is the fact that it was designed and produced using x-functional and x-cultural teams, another innovation for Nissan, at least in Europe (a European product developed with Japanese DNA according to Mr Murakami). Maybe without this
parallel innovation in working practices and collaboration, the product would have failed to deliver on its promise? This suggests that spotting an opportunity ‘between the gaps’ is not enough as it may require parallel innovations in the way the product is developed if the strategy is to succeed; blue ocean strategy may also require new blue ocean capabilities.

How can we value "innovation capability"?

2008-06-12T15:12:00.002+02:00

Is the innovation capability of an organisation measurable as a financial asset and is it typically valued during due diligence at the time of acquisition? We all know that a Brand has a value (negative or positive) so is it possible to value other intangible assets such as innovation capability? Does anyone have any experience of trying to do this and with what results? What are the challenges and constraints? If not, is this one fewer reason to invest in improving my innovation capabilities?

Update

See this RealInnovation thread for some enlightened responses responses to this question.

"Jobs-to-be-done" in practice....

2008-08-23T14:33:00.005+02:00

Here is an example of the “Jobs-to-be-done” (J2BD) tool used to ‘reverse engineer’ an existing product, in this case Ultra Motor’s A2B Light Electric Vehicle (LEV) as profiled by Innosight in this blog post. We use “Jobs-to-be-done” (J2BD) in H2FL workshops and demonstrate its power to ‘reverse engineer’ Starbuck’s current product offering. One highlight here enhancement here is that Innosight identify Social, Emotional and Functional jobs to create a more rounded and complete picture of the customer needs they believe are satisfied by the product.

So What?

firstly, Innosight makes a common mistake of comparing this product with traditional gas-powered scooters when in fact its competition is much more likely to be a growing list of alternative electric scooters, the Segway, a bicycle, public transport etc.

What is important when applying the J2BD tool is to drive-out what hidden needs are uniquely being addressed by the product or service, especially if in a competitive and crowded market such as LEV’s. It takes creativity and a 360° perspective to do this and any simplistic analysis is likely to be less than useful.

The only sign of uniqueness in this anlaysis of the product is the innovative business model being applied in Stuttgart, Germany. Maybe this is the only unique feature but if it is, it addresses a more specific need not highlighted here – access to suitable transportation without capital investment and puts the product into a different competing category.

Like all tools J2BD needs careful application and any superficial rendering of it will likely lead to the wrong analysis and conclusions’, whether ‘reverse engineering ’ an existing product or trying to identify the needs for a new one.

The role of Trust in Collaboration & Open innovation

2008-07-27T12:11:00.005+02:00

This research from Cisco & the EIU highlighted a significant challenge we face in moving from ‘closed’ to ‘open’ innovation models i.e. linear, proprietary and internally-driven (typically by our own R&D) to collaborative (with suppliers, partners and increasingly customers). As the research suggests, although we talk about collaborating today in fact most collaboration is no more than communicating to coordinate activities or cooperating across departmental boundaries to solve problems, creating no new significant insights or value.

If encouraged, collaboration can be a significant multiplier with each player bringing the sum of their knowledge and the value of this generating new insights impossible to gain via classic problem-solution behaviour; the challenge is to move the operator from addition to multiplication where 3+3 = 6 becomes 3x3 = 9, a 50% improvement.

A good example from my experience is NPD (New Product Development), a process designed to create new value, but often lacking the depth of collaboration necessary to achieve it. Too often each party is ensconced in its organisational, linguistic an cultural corner defending its position and without any real intention to step into the new space necessary to generate something new, compelling, different or with a clear customer value proposition.

This Industry Week article suggests that we are going to see a step increase in collaborative activities, including SME's, right across the value chain creating even more pressure to address the trust deficiency.

So What?

If collaboration is a struggle today, then how much more of an issue is going to be in an open innovation culture? Maybe we need to focus on and solve the internal trust issue that sits behind ineffective internal collaboration before we can progress to more demanding external ones? How many organisations have even considered this as an issue, especially in the context of innovation, or make a serious attempt to build the internal cultural, linguistic and organisational bridges necessary? Few that I know.

The way we manage a business, the metrics and rewards we use to influence behaviour sit at the heart of this and without a better understanding of their role in encouraging or limiting meaningful collaboration and the achievement of our innovation goals our innovation gap is going to grow. Yet another sign that it is time to “stop hunting and start farming lightning!”

Trust equation image courtesy of http://www.designinglife.com/.