Burning Questions 2007

Does Size Matter?

Apparently so, according to a new study on innovation by futurethink. Specific combinations of organizational size and styles are dictating innovation success they say.

“This is not a proverbial case of David versus Goliath, rather a case of David and Goliath,” emphasizes Lisa Bodell, chief executive officer of futurethink in an article on Reliable Plant. “Our results demonstrate that actually it is both the largest (50,000-plus employees) and smallest (500 and under employees) organizations that are most effective when it comes to innovation.”

One wonders if those in the middle -- apparently stuck in their innovation efforts -- are more focused on maturing their processes and structures as they grow from being smaller, more entrepreneurial players to more established firms. There are always those points when firms have to stop, breathe, and reorganize what they do. However, the large span of the gap -- from relatively tiny to giant -- would argue against that being the issue. Perhaps instead is that small firms need to be innovative in order to survive, get funding, etc. and the largest firms have gotten to that point by being successful innovators. In other words, you have to be innovative at the start and then only the innovative survive to get large.

More distressing, the research reports that the average innovation score at reporting companies was 8.3 out of a possible 20. As they say, the only way to go is up.

What do you think? Tell us now or tell us in person at Burning Questions 2007: Leading for Innovation.

Innovation for Innovation's Sake?

Here's an interesting article written by Graham Walker of Cognos that points out the danger of innovating just for the sake of putting out something new.

"...there has never been as much pressure for organisations to drive this (innovation) process, and get it right quickly. We live in a world where the consumer is better informed and has more choice than ever before. The capacity to evolve quickly has never been as important. Quite simply, if you stand still, your competitors will not, and you will be left behind."

"But, organisations must be careful to not fall into the trap of pushing innovation for innovation's sake. It is not just about coming up with the most exciting and original idea. Senior executives must ensure they are driving intelligent innovation and it is critical that the success or value of a new idea is judged on the impact that it will have on the bottom line and company goals."

This is much of what will be talked about at Burning Questions 2007.

Innovation and AIDS Prevention

"People who have some good ideas related to AIDS prevention and support work will get a chance to secure funding for their schemes at this year’s Viet Nam Innovation Day," according to Viet Nam News.

The Viet Nam Administration of HIV/AIDS Control and World Bank yesterday launched Viet Nam Innovation Day, which this year has the theme of ‘Stop AIDS: keep the promise’."

Finally -- An Innovation Predictor

"Many stockholders wish they could look into a crystal ball to forecast a firm's performance. Researchers at the University of Minnesota have found that they need something far less mystical to predict future innovations of firms," reports Science Daily.

"The answer lies in the words of the CEO," said Rajesh Chandy, professor of marketing at the university's Carlson School of Management. "By simply counting the number of future oriented sentences in annual reports we can predict future innovation by the firm."

Of course now once the results of the study become well known we can expect share price watchers at public companies to be instructing their wordsmiths to put as many words as possible that are attributed to the CEO into the future tense. And, with the spate of private equity buyouts, there will be fewer annual reports at which to look. This is a valuable bit of research nonetheless.

What if? Australia

I couldn't resist the headline: "Nudie Founder Plans 'Innovation Powerhouse.'" Did that imply a naked entrepreneur? No, Nudie is a brand of juice in Australia and its founder, Tim Pethick, is set to start a branch of the UK innovation consultancy What If? in his home country. His ambition is to "stoke the creative fires of Australian business."

What If?'s UK founders believe that established enterprises have ''inefficient and damaging approaches to creative innovation'' and it will be interesting to watch what Pethick's efforts have in Australia. It's his first attempt to go beyond a single start up to work with multiple businesses at once.

Is Innovation Being Democratized?

It's widely held that we live in an age of mass customization and user-generated content. One can get custom running shoes as Nike.com and sites like YouTube are thick with content from the masses. But has democracy really come to innovation?

The question still inspires debate as reflected in this story from The Wilmington Star. The iPod is an example they cite and most anything from Apple would follow -- this "innovative" product can't really be customized at all. It is the product of top-down innovation driven by an elite.

What does the democratization of innovation really mean? Yahoo! conducts hundreds of experiments on its web site every day and thus the actions and reactions of thosands of users inform their innovation decisions. But does any one of those users see themselves as part of the innovation process? Does the end-user have to be able to change the way he or she uses a product for them to be participants? Does it have to be open-source in the end -- or is regular feedback that is digested and applied by the innovation elite sufficient?

Innovation is a challenging topic because the word means so many different things to different people. Yes, the iPod can only be used exactly as intended by the sages at Apple, but the device (and iTunes which I think is the real innovation) changed the relationship of many people both to the music they own and the way in which they obtain new music. Perhaps this makes it a more paternalistic social democratic device rather than a rough-and-tumble full-throated democratic innovation but millions of users seem to be happy. It freed us from the choke hold of the full-length CD as the only unit of purchase. It actually brought us back to the 1950's in a way by turning every cut into the digital equivalent of a 45-rpm single and allowing one to preview every song before purchase as was common in mid-century record stores.

What does the democratization of innovation mean to you? What examples of it do you have to share?

Patents and Innovation

What is the role of patent policy on innovation? There's an interesting conversation going on over at Xconomy about potential effect of proposed patent reform act in the U.S.

One of the challenges in reforming patent law at this point is that the potential value of a patent is more widely understood than ever now that we are patenting genes and other things that no one would have thought of a generation ago. It's much harder to write law that is fair to such a wide range of players. There are also more lawyers than ever ready to challenge patents on behalf of their clients. Patent challenges have become, in some cases, a strategic weapon against competitors.

And the legislative process is slow and deliberative by design while innovation is moving more quickly than ever. Writing laws that are relevant not just today but ten years from now is incredibly difficult.

What do you think of the proposed reforms to the patent laws?

New Innovation Center for Ireland

"IBM has announced the opening of a new Innovation Centre in IBM Technology Campus Dublin, to accelerate entrepreneurship in Ireland. IBM is announcing plans to launch four Innovation Centres
across Europe including Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Switzerland."

IBM is also a sponsor of Burning Questions 2007: Leading for Innovation to be held in London on October 24 - 26, 2007.

UK Innovation Advantage?

In the United States, we rely on market mechanisms to drive innovation. The United Kingdom is taking a more directed approach, as I learned over lunch with David Kester, chief executive of the Design Council.

Kester told me that in the United Kingdom, where most schools are publicly funded, a decision has been made to create six “innovation centres” that will bring together academic institutions in design, engineering, and business. Many fascinating things happen at the intersections of disciplines, and this program is an interesting way to create those junctures where they might not otherwise occur.

One of these “innovation triangles” is being created by the Royal College of Art and Imperial College London. Imperial brings engineering and technology expertise through its Faculty of Engineering as well as business knowledge through its Tanaka Business School. The £5.8 million investment is designed “to create world-beating products and services.”

Academia in the United States has pursued increasing specialization, with interdisciplinary programs being more the exception than the norm. Achieving tenure still depends on publishing in highly focused academic journals that reward research more than practice. A recent review of articles in the International Journal of Applied Management and Technology revealed such titles as “A New Hybrid Algorithm for Multi Objective Permutation Flowshop Scheduling Problem” and “Pedagogy for Determining Alternate Solutions to Integer Resource Allocation Problems.” There is certainly value in this research, but one wonders how often it leads to world-beating products and services.

The “bump and connect” model of innovation -- creating environments where people can have semi-random but productive encounters -- has become popular among urban planners. This experiment in the United Kingdom is a more deliberate attempt to foster these interactions in campus settings.

Innovation is increasingly seen as the key to global competitiveness. China and India both push out more technical and engineering graduates than the United States or other developed nations. The Innovation Centres, the result of the government-funded Cox Review of Creativity in Business: Building on the UK's Strengths, are themselves an interesting innovation that may enable a relatively small nation to outpace larger rivals.

Should universities in the United States put more emphasis on multidisciplinary programs to foster innovation?

_________________________

David Kester will be among the speakers at Burning Questions 2007: Leading for Innovation.

Burning Questions 2007 Announced

Burning Questions 2007 -- Harvard Business School Publishing's premiere gathering on leading executives and top thought leaders -- will be held in London, England on October 24 - 26, 2007. The theme is Leading for Innovation.

This is an invitation only event. For more details visit www.burningquestions.com.