BLOGS IN BUSINESS -- WHAT WE COULD DO NOW"> BLOGS IN BUSINESS -- WHAT WE COULD DO NOW"> <span style="color: black;">BLOGS IN BUSINESS -- WHAT WE COULD DO <i>NOW</i></span>
stargeek
PHP news website logo.
home    PHP scripts    articles    seo tools    links    search    contact    shop    realtors


BLOGS IN BUSINESS -- WHAT WE COULD DO NOW







BLOGS IN
BUSINESS -- WHAT WE COULD DO
NOW

BLOGS IN
BUSINESS -- WHAT WE COULD DO
NOW
06/30/2004 04:01 PM

blogworthy contentI've written before about Blogs in Business and the role I think they could play. But my idealism -- the desire to have a better, simpler blog product with some better social networking functionality before we try to sell it to business -- is giving way to my impatience. A couple of business leaders have challenged me to develop a pragmatic strategy for effectively introducing blogs into a business today. Here's what I said.

First, the strategy for doing so must respect some fairly unorthodox principles. If it doesn't, blogs will just end up being one more awkward and confusing part of already unwieldy and underused corporate Intranets. These principles are:
  1. Blogs are Personal: Each individual blogger must retain control over the content in his or her blog, and over decisions on what does and doesn't go into it. This is its unique selling point to front-line workers who are used to seeing all the knowledge they contribute disappear into an undifferentiated massive corporate content architecture with no personal ownership or responsibility for quality, currency or completeness.
  2. The Taxonomy must also be Personal: Asking people to organize their content into standard categories is a square peg in round hole exercise. Don't let the CKO or the CIO presume to tell individual knowledge workers how they should organize their personal stuff.
  3. The Blogging Tool must be Simple: Select the easiest possible blogging tool, and if necessary hide some of the tricky bells and whistles. People have enough to learn without having to master HTML and RSS.
  4. Involve KM, IT, Learning and Marketing in the Project Team: All four departments will be needed to introduce blogs effectively into the workplace. Make this a joint project where each of the four departments shares in the work, and its success or failure. That may take some advance selling but if one department tries to go it alone they'll fail. And you need at least one Executive Sponsor on the Project Team. For that, you'll need an Elevator Pitch for blogs in business, which I'll talk about next week.

OK, on to the strategy. Here's a twelve-step plan I think could work in just about any organization, large or small:
  1. Educate the Project Team: Have a session where the KM, IT, Learning and Marketing people learn about blogs hands-on. Set one up for each member of the Project Team and let them play for a few days.
  2. Identify the Pilot Group: Don't try to introduce this to everyone in a large organization at once. Pick a few cohesive groups that would likely benefit most e.g. newsletter editors, subject matter experts and others who are already 'publishing' stuff internally or externally. Focus on those who care more about content than style, those who produce a lot of content, and those who produce time-sensitive content often. Ask a sample of front-line workers this question: "Whose filing cabinet contents would be most useful to you in doing your job?" They're the people you want in the Pilot Group. If you have eager and experienced blogging zealots on staff, include them even if they don't otherwise qualify, but make them promise not to customize their blogs for three months, until the Pilot Group is up on their feet.
  3. Develop a starting Personal Taxonomy for each Pilot Group member: This will be different for each person and should probably not have more than 20 categories and sub-categories. Start with the organization of their filing cabinets, or their My Documents folder. If that doesn't work, go on to step 4 for that Piloter and see if, once you know what the content is, a personal taxonomy suggests itself. But don't constrain the Piloters -- this is their content and they need to be able to organize and categorize it the way it makes sense to them. The categories and sub-categories will usually be subjects, customers or company products, rather than knowledge types (best practices, stories, policies etc.) Keep the librarians in check: This is organization by what people do, not how taxonomists think about knowledge 'domains'.
  4. Develop a starting Personal Content Archive for each Pilot Group member, organized by their Personal Taxonomy. The archive should cover all information, documents and links that the Piloter thinks are useful or interesting and which he or she authored, customized or obtained from outside the organization. The types of content that each Piloter should be encouraged to include are shown in the top-right illustration above. If Piloters are worried about confidentiality of some of this information, tell them they will be able to restrict who has access to it.
  5. Select a Blogging Tool: The tool you select must be easy to use but powerful enough to accommodate the categories and content you have identified. If the Project Team have been playing with different tools for a few days this will help in the selection. Don't leave the decision up to experienced bloggers. This will be hard for many users no matter what tool you choose.
  6. Get IT to convert all the Personal Content Archives to HTML: This is not a job for amateurs. MS Office documents converted to HTML can get huge and ugly. At the same time, if you're an MS Office company, develop a standard process for converting documents to HTML going forward -- this will be an ongoing challenge, and not one you want to leave up to the Pilot Group.
  7. Get IT to 'bulk publish' all the Pilot Group's Personal Content Archives: This one-time process will get your blogging project off with a bang, with a bunch of pre-selected useful content that the Pilot Group will be proud of and others in the company will want to see.
  8. Get IT to create a Table of Contents for each Pilot Group member: While regular blog content may disappear into the archives without consequence, business blog content has a longer shelf life, and readers need to be able to browse the Table of Contents of each person's blog, organized according to their Personal Taxonomy. Like step 6, keeping this current will be an ongoing challenge, and will require developing a standard process for adding each new post to the Table of Contents. This may involve some work, but it's important.
  9. Get IT to develop a password protection scheme for the blogs: Each Pilot Group member needs to be able to set who can and cannot view their blog content. The password protection scheme needs to be able to accommodate different needs for this, and include an e-mail based authorization system that will allow those who are initially prohibited from accessing a desired blog to get a password from the blog owner. Access should not be limited to those inside the company -- if at all possible, you should allow those outside the organization with the appropriate password to access company blogs as well. This may be tricky, but the potential benefits of exposing useful company blogs to customers, associates and other personal network members outside the organization are enormous.
  10. Get your Learning group to offer a short seminar to everyone in the company on how to publish and subscribe to blogs: This will help the Pilot Group continue to publish new material regularly, will create an appetite for others in the organization to subscribe to Pilot Group blogs (and to other blogs outside the organization), and will probably identify second wave blog volunteers once your Pilot Group are on their feet. Having a blog should be voluntary, and the fact that it is will create a viral market and curiosity about blogs ("why are all these people setting up blogs when they don't have to?"). Let the size of your company blogosphere grow organically at its own pace.
  11. Get your Marketing group to talk up blogs outside the organization: Create an appetite among customers and others outside the organization to subscribe to the blogs of their personal contacts inside the organization, as if this were a special 'channel' into the company. Let them subscribe to a few showcase Pilot Group blogs (ideally those run by people in Marketing) to see what they're missing.
  12. Set Up a Blog Help and Monitoring Group: This cross-functional group could be just the Project Team, or a part of the IT or KM Group, but one way or another you need a clearly defined group to hold the hands of new bloggers, measure the volume and assess the quality and sufficiency of publishing and subscription, and handle the demand of the second wave of potential bloggers.
Although as I mentioned earlier I think you need an Elevator Pitch to get at least one Executive Sponsor for your Blogs in Business project, I don't think you need, or probably want, to do a lot of explaining and marketing (other than to the Project Team and Pilot Group) about what blogs are or what their value is. This project is likely to succeed more if it's quietly demand-driven rather than supply-driven (imposed or hyped). Think of it like Instant Messaging -- an application that most businesses never thought would catch on, but which has become ubiquitous and accepted in many businesses by viral marketing (peer-to-peer word of mouth) and voluntary take-up. It's a much easier way to sell a new technology, and as long as these 12 steps are taken, blogging is tailor-made for it. For once, if you build it right, they will come.




This is a GrokNews Entry: (what is grok?)





Similar Items

BLOGS IN BUSINESS -- WHAT WE COULD DO NOW

Grok Headline matches for BLOGS IN BUSINESS -- WHAT WE COULD DO NOW

AN
INTERACTIVE TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR
BLOGS


AN
INTERACTIVE TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR
BLOGS
05/12/2004 12:41 PM
Dave's Blog Taxonomy
As you may know, I've been maintaining (manually) detailed tables of contents of my blog posts (one per blog 'category') since I started. They're a bit clumsy, but they get a fair bit of traffic so I know people are using them. Right now they exist as six 'stories' and I thought it might be interesting to try to put them together into a single, interactive index. I'm competent in neither HTML nor Radio's 'outlining' function (I confess I don't even know how to use anchors properly -- the twisties below and the links in the graphic above don't work, and links below should really take you to the specific subcategory within the table of contents), so I can't make it pretty or functional, but you can get the idea of how it might work:

.BLOGS & BLOGGING:

.BUSINESS

.ARTS & SCIENCES

.ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHY

.POLITICS & ECONOMICS

.CREATIVE WORKS

My six categories have a total of 40 subcategories, of which five (Blogs in Business, Technology, Stories & Narrative, New Collaborative Enterprise, and Environmental & Social Economics & Law) overlap categories and hence appear under two categories each. The ten most popular subcategories (most linked, and most commented-on) are shown in bold. This taxonomy is essentially the same one I use for my filing cabinet tabs and for my My Documents subfolders, except that they omit the 'housekeeping' type tabs and subfolders that house my background papers, messages and private and personal records.

I am not offering this as any kind of framework for a 'universal' taxonomy. In fact, I've been adamant that any personal content management system needs to allow us to index our documents and messages any way we want, our way, at whatever level of granularity works best for each individual. Universal taxonomies just don't work. But if we think of a blog as the 'public area' of our personal content, the shareable part of our personal 'filing cabinet', I thought it might make an interesting case study in how we might best 'present' each individual's publicly-available 'stuff' for effective browsing by others.

I see the blog, and at a broader level the 'tabs' of our personal content management system, our 'filing cabinet', as nothing more than 'addresses' or destinations to send content to. So although Microsoft would have us believe that 'saving' a document or message, 'sending' a document or message to someone else, and 'publishing' a document or message to a blog or website, are three fundamentally different functions and applications, I see them as conceptually indistinguishable -- they're all actions that move content from one specific space to another. That's why I have proposed a single, intuitive Workspace Manipulation and Document Annotation tool to replace virtually every application users have on their PCs today, a tool that would finally make PCs accessible to the billions of technologically challenged among us. But I digress...

I can envision the Interactive Blog Table of Contents working in one of two ways:
  1. Map Layout: The table of contents would be displayed graphically, as in the top diagram above. Clicking on any of the 40 subcategory links would replace the map with a hotlinked list of posts in that subcategory -- showing title, date, author (if applicable) and a brief synopsis or abstract of each post.
  2. 'Outline' Layout: The content would be displayed, possibly in the blog sidebar, in 'outline' mode: Clicking on the 'Table of Contents' box would open up the list of the 40 subcategories, and then clicking on any of them would display (probably in a separate window)a hotlinked list of posts in that subcategory -- again, showing title, date, author (if applicable) and a brief synopsis or abstract of each post.
How useful would this be for you? If you're not one of those that browses my tables of contents, would this kind of functionality be useful on your own blog, even if only to help you find your own archived posts without having to use a hit-and-miss search bar? Could you envision using this tool more broadly as a means of indexing everything in your My Documents folder and Inbox, and perhaps even all the hard-copy stuff in your filing cabinet as well?

Ultimately, I can see the development of an invisible (to the user) 'metadata layer', which would take our preferred organization of our personal stuff and translate it into some universal standard, and then as needed into each reader's personal organization of his/her content, so that for example if Jon Husband wants to browse my publicly permissioned content, he won't see it organized as I have, above, but will instead see it automatically reorganized and relabelled using his personal taxonomy and nomenclature. I believe this 'metadata' layer development will be one of the most interesting and important technology challenges of this century.

In the meantime, if there's sufficient interest, I'll buckle down and learn enough HTML and Outlining to implement either solution (1) or (2) above for my blog.

ACTIVE SALON
BLOGS LIST UPDATED


ACTIVE SALON
BLOGS LIST UPDATED
01/10/2004 03:19 PM
salonI've updated the Dire ctory of Active Salon Blogs. Please send me details on any missing and new Salon Blogs, and errors in the Directory. I promise to post any updates I receive at least once a week.

There are now 159 active (updated in the last month, or officially on vacation but returning) Salon Blogs. Comings & Goings this past month:
  • No longer blogging, it seems: The enormously helpful Charlie Z at Driver 8, the enormously successful Julie Powell of the Julie/Julia Project, Ray of Nobody Loves Raymond, whose blog is MIA, great story-teller Hugh Elliott at Standing Room Only, and Cat M. of Chronicles of an Anti-Apathetic. Their presence in this part of the blogosphere will be sorely missed.
  • Good news: Penny of My So-Called Lesbian Life is back.
  • Daniel X. O'Neil, the veteran Salon blogger at GoogObits who uniquely chronicles the deceased, has moved to his own site.
  • The flight from Radio to Typepad seems to have stopped, at least for now.
  • Of the roughly 100 new Salon Blog numbers assigned this past month, about 40 actually made at least one post, and the following 17 appear to be posting regularly. I especially recommend MallowDrama, Hermit's Notebook, Hoi Polloi and I Don't Know What Happened, which are off to sensational starts. Welcome, new Sloggers all.
Althaea Officinalis: MallowDrama
Hermit's Notebook, A
Theater of the Absurd
Much,Much,More of This and That
Letters to Jessica
Worms of Endearment
Arclist
Gabriela's Radio Weblog
Music Freak's dip into blog-infested waters
Hoi Polloi
I Don't Know What Happened
Living Backstage
You're Getting Very Sleepy
Frances D. Gonzalez's Radio Weblog
Blogcabin - Come Warm Yourself By The Fire
Pan's Garden
75003 Paris

Some stats for this past month:
  • Total hits this month for Salon Blogs were about 1.1 million, up about 8% for the month, but they were very unevenly distributed (even more than usual), with 850 thousand of these hits going to the top 11 blogs. For the typical Slogger, December traffic was about 10% quieter than November, due probably to the holidays. The median for active Salon Bloggers was only about 700 hits per month, about 30 per day.
  • Inbound blogs totaled about 3250, up about 5% month-over-month, with the top 11 blogs accounting for 50% of them. The median for active Salon Bloggers was 7 inbound blogs.
  • About 42% of active Sloggers are female, up significantly from just over 30% three months ago. That's great news, but I don't know what to make of it.
I'll continue to keep the Directory current, with your help, and will report at least bi-monthly on comings & goings and stats.

P.S. I've also updated my Tables of Contents (see top left of my blog). Since Google has, for some reason, stopped crawling How to Save the World, Google is no longer a reliable way to find things in my archives. I'm going to test some other search engines and change my search bar accordingly.

SOME MORE
EXEMPLARY BLOGS


SOME MORE
EXEMPLARY BLOGS
02/10/2004 02:48 AM
parrot
I've just adding another dozen items to my already bloated blogroll. I'm actually quite discriminating in what I add, rejecting most of the requests I get to 'reciprocally' blogroll, and never adding a blog until I've seen at least two remarkable posts on two different days. There's just a lot of great writing out there! Here are a few of the blogs I've added this time:

Practical Metaphors - Ryan Fugger finds amazing things on the Internet that no one else seems to find. Check out this post linking to the provocative short film 'Bullet in the Brain' you can download (bandwidth permitting). Ryan's another reader of Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. He's an articulate essayist on how to make the world better, and a contributor to the Blogger's Parliament.

A Relative Path - Jonathan Broad has a brilliant wit and an ability to succinctly summarize current events and contemplate their deeper meaning. He's also a pessimist willing to look at the horrors of our recent history and discuss what they tell us about human nature, and what we could do to avoid repeating them.

Bastish - Kevin Cameron's great photoblog that I neglected to include in my recent post of favourite photoblogs. The picture above is one of Kevin's. He's currently living in Japan, which must be a photographer's dream.

Orcinus - Seattle journalist and liberal A-lister Dave Neiwert doesn't need any publicity from me, but he's a great writer and covers, prolifically and in detail, well-referenced and supported, the foibles of the Bush regime.

Globalize This - A new blog by Adam Hersh, a researcher at the Economic Policy Institute, has astute observations on economic and trade matters, which are going to be of crucial importance in the coming months and years. In addition to explaining economic matters in understandable terms, with a progressive slant that I of course appreciate, Adam also covers the work of senior economist and colleague Max Sawicky, whose blog MaxSpeak I've also blogrolled.

And on the business/IT side, I've added Stephen Downes' and David Wilcox's blogs, both of which articulately cover the emerging world of social networking and its role in business and society.

A
PRESCRIPTION FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION
-PART TWO


A
PRESCRIPTION FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION
-PART TWO
04/20/2004 03:38 PM
Four years ago I wrote a well-received paper entitled A Prescription for Business Innovation: Creating Technologies that Solve Basic Human Needs. I've updated it, broken it into three manageable pieces, and present the second part below. The first part, which reviewed the history of human innovation and technology, is here and the third part will follow next Tuesday.

Four:  Innovation & Society: How Technologies Limit Freedom, Human Nature Confounds Innovation, and Consumer Decision Tools Doom Marketing

Innovation ProcessThose of you with HR backgrounds are probably wondering why I have not spoken about non-individual, community aspects of civilization and why and how these arose if the innovative individual is perfectly able to do it all him- or herself. These issues are relevant because of the role of teams, organizations and other social constructs in the process of innovation.

Let's take another look at our proto-human, now equipped with the six basic types of manually powered machine (lever, wheel, screw, pulley, plane, and wedge -- the latter in the form of flint-head arrows), plus other early innovations like controlled fire, animal domestication and crop cultivation. Like other creatures he's adopted the family unit as a social convention, but now he's experimenting with a more sophisticated social construct, the tribe. Question is, why? Is it Darwinian -- Did humans that banded together have a higher likelihood of survival than loners? Or is it purely social -- Do humans, like other creatures, have a basic need for social contact with others that goes beyond family? Whichever it is -- a survival need or a social need, it required innovations to make it work, innovations like a code of laws and behaviours to prevent and resolve disputes between individuals, and shared language.

At this point, in the view of some anthropologists, a tug-of-war began between our essential individual, autonomous nature and the perceived benefits of increasingly advanced, abstract and restrictive 'technologies' like division of labour, specialization, private and communal property, governments and other hierarchical social organizations, including the modern corporation.  All these social 'technologies' limit individuals' freedom, and much of our civilization has been about trying to find a delicate balance between individual 'rights' and the apparent benefits afforded by technologies that compromise them. This tug-of-war continues to play out today, in our suspicion of government, the existence of 'militias', libertarian movements, evolution of privacy laws, and struggles over property ownership. The battle is far from over, with slavery, one particularly extreme social construct favouring hierarchical efficiency over individual liberty, still practiced in many countries, and women, children and animals treated as property with no rights or freedoms whatsoever in many others.

This tension also plays out in the modern corporation, itself a feudal social construct which is neither egalitarian nor democratic. Corporate efficiencies have produced technologies that have massively improved material wealth and (most believe) quality of life in the few centuries since they were invented. But these advantages have come with a huge cost of personal freedom -- In many countries employees are virtual slaves of their employers, with no hope of realizing their full personal potential. In many companies promotion and remuneration have nothing to do with performance or competency.

Here are some of the consequences for innovation of this individual/collective tension, in today's companies:
  • Employees hoard rather than sharing knowledge, including knowledge that could yield innovation, to protect their position and rank in the company
  • Employees rarely volunteer new ideas, fearing ridicule, retribution, being ignored, or having credit for the idea stolen by their boss if it succeeds
  • Managers safely and instinctively squelch innovative 'crazy ideas' of subordinates
  • Managers, fearing the wrath of shareholders (today's 'absentee owners'), are risk averse, preferring to buy ideas once they have been successfully developed by others, over incubating the company's own ideas, even though the latter is cheaper and more effective
  • Employees compete for credit rather than sharing it
  • Employees, since they are rated on their individual performance, consider teamwork and collaborative activities less important than individual, solitary ones
  • Managers instinctively delegate tasks in a project to individuals rather than teams (since it's easier that way to place blame if something goes wrong), and individuals usually prefer being given individual rather than team assignments as well
If people are social by nature, why are corporations so unable to tap into this to leverage the power of teams to enhance innovation? The answer may be simple. In The Hidden Life of Dogs, author Elizabeth Marshall Thomas explains that most animals have an inherent desire to socialize with their peers, that seems totally unrelated to survival needs. In fact, dogs that wander from homes where they are well-fed and cared for appear to be looking for social contact with other dogs for its own sake, just as children like to hang out with others doing things they can do just as effectively alone. At the same time, both dogs and children often become extremely jealous, competitive, possessive and unsociable when these same fellow creatures impose on their personal 'territory': family, toys, food bowl, and members of the opposite sex.

Perhaps this is a universal trait that we need to consider when designing innovation programs: Everyone loves to engage in social activities that are fun, challenging and unthreatening, but when the social activity impinges on individual 'territory' or property, or on scarce resources, social and collaborative behaviour ceases and confrontational, competitive behaviour takes over.

But isn't competitive behaviour exactly what business thrives on? Doesn't the rush of adrenaline and testosterone in the quest for competitive advantage and 'winning' yield high productivity, sharpened customer focus, and more new ideas?

I would argue that competition is at best a neutral factor in engendering innovation, and may in fact be detrimental. Most of the books on teamwork, such as The Wisdom of Teams, stress two essential preconditions to effective team behaviour:
  • A specific, defined problem agreed to and shared by all team-members, and
  • A sense of urgency that imposes a short-term deadline that the team-members can work towards
There are other factors that affect a team's success, of course, such as the competencies and access to knowledge of the team members, and the effectiveness of the processes by which the team works. What is important here is that nowhere is a competitive threat, competitive challenge or competition of any kind considered essential to team effectiveness. Even in sports, the best teams focus on what they do well (the attributes of their team's excellence) and the achievement of specific objectives (like scoring points) rather than being distracted by competing with the other team, 'winning' and exploiting the other team's weaknesses. Good teams usually take solace in having played well even in a losing cause, and are alarmed when they play badly but still manage to win. In fact, a major competitive tactic in business is to force one's competitors to shift their focus to your agenda, to take their eye off their team's goal to instead compete with you.

Furthermore, many businesses are now reaching out to involve customers, alliance partners and even competitors in their problem-solving teams, because they help bring different points of view to the creative process, and because these external partners share both the defined problem and the sense of urgency with the internal team. In a world of accelerating change, no competitive advantage is sustainable -- innovations and new technologies can almost instantly reinvent industries, products, services, and offerings, and eliminate any competitive advantage the old ones may have had. Despite massive and sustained oligopolistic efforts to prevent it, customers are beginning to wrest absolute control of business direction and success from almost every industry's producers, management strategists and marketers, and now set the agenda and reward companies that respond to their needs and build new serving capability, not those that bash the competition, sue their customers, or create barriers to competitive offerings. The Bush regime's corporatist agenda has been only a temporary setback in this inexorable trend.

A side-note about branding: Many marketing people, lamenting over the passage of market control from producer to consumer, cite the increasing importance of branding as an organizational strategy, and of brand loyalty as a success factor. For this reason, they argue, aggressive, proactive marketing is not dead. They fail to appreciate that consumers, faced with the severe scarcity of (a) time to assess product alternatives and (b) objective comparative analysis like Consumer Reports, tend to use 'brand' as an unsatisfactory surrogate decision-making tool. If you as a consumer want to buy a car, or select a television program to watch, the ideal decision-making process would be:
  1. Find an analytical tool that identifies all of the relevant selection criteria, rates all of the available alternative products against these criteria, and allows you to identify and 'weight' the criteria that are important to you. This tool would 'remember' and start with the criteria and weightings you used the last time you made a similar decision.
  2. Use the tool to generate a 'first cut' list of alternatives ranked by your personal criteria, and show the sensitivity of the ranking to changes in your criteria weightings (some days you may like to watch a thought-provoking program, and on others you may prefer something light and funny; one year you may want a practical car, and the next something sportier).
  3. Find a tool that uses 'neural network' technology to draw upon your past choices for these and other products, correlate them against the choices of other people whom you trust or who have a history of making similar choices to yours, and generate a second list of alternatives, ranked by the collective consensus of your peer group. This tool would 'learn' from past choices and from your evaluations of them.
  4. Integrate the two lists and use subjective overrides to make your final selection.
In the case of a big-ticket selection like a car, you would probably invest significant time in making the final decision. In a small-ticket selection like a television program, the final decision could be greatly simplified or even fully automated, so your television would automatically go to the highest-ranked program in the two lists, and signal to you a 'score' showing the computed probability you will like it (since your ultimate decision may be not to watch anything).

Tools like these exist today (Consumer Reports is an example of the former; the Recommendations Lists of Amazon.com are an example of the latter), but they are not yet very robust or reliable. In their absence, brands and brand loyalty are the surrogates: 'I always buy Chrysler products' or 'I usually watch CSI on Thursday nights' is your brain's way of substituting brand for the more ideal tools noted above. Once these tools exist (and the Information Age is ripe for them), product brands will simply become community-identification brands ('I drive Chrysler products because they reflect who I am and I want others to see that and associate with me, or not, because of that identification'). At this point, brand community-association becomes merely one more selection criterion of the analytical tool. With the advent of the near-perfect consumer information these tools provide, traditional marketing has no remaining role, and the knowledge-driven transition of power from producer to consumer is complete.

Five: The Structure & Culture of Innovative Organizations: Business Gets Feminine and Consumers Seize Power from Producers

It is now accepted wisdom that the organization of the future must be flatter, more empowering, less hierarchical and more networked, in order to be sufficiently agile and responsive to the ever-more-powerful customer's needs. Much has been written about organizational 'ecology' and the ability of communities of practice to self-organize to solve identified common problems more quickly and effectively than command-and-control driven organizational structures. There is a growing awareness that self-organizing communities operate best when their leadership uses what are usually considered 'female' modes of operation rather than the traditional 'male' ones:
  • Decisions are made by democratic consensus rather than by fiat
  • Persuasion and change occurs by engaging decision-makers in thought processes and finding shared mental models, rather than the wielding of power and authority
  • Problem-solving teams select (and when necessary, change) their own leader(s) rather than having one imposed on them
  • Problem-solving teams form themselves, drawing on individuals' networks, and disband themselves when the problem has been solved, much the way the human body's immune system organizes itself to fight infection
  • Rather than formal permanent roles, positions, and 'up-or-out' career paths, individuals move laterally from project to project, wherever their skills and experiences are best suited, and often wear multiple hats on simultaneously-running projects, rather than having a single title
  • Rewards and remuneration are based on the depth of developed skills, experiences and networks, the things that have value to the organization in the future, rather then on past performance (which is rewarded with one-time bonuses at the completion of a project) or on seniority or title
  • 'Management' at the top is replaced by 'Improvisational Strategizing' at the centre of the organization
The real contention over this new organizational culture is whether it is efficient enough to justify a new organizational structure to support it, or whether instead some kind of balance between hierarchical and autonomous structures is needed. Is it empowering, or is it naïve, to believe that if an organization sets specific strategies and goals and then 'gets out of the way', the employees will effectively figure out the best way to achieve them? Can the tools, the infrastructure of technologies, knowledge-bases and equipment, needed to achieve organizational and project objectives, be left up to project teams to develop as needed and ad hoc, or must they be rationalized and inventoried and efficiently 'managed'? Who controls the purse-strings, and approves allocation of budgets and resources for each project -- can project teams really do this themselves or do these resources also need to be centrally 'managed'?

These issues are important to the future of business innovation. We must decide whether an organization saddled with the structures and controls of an old 'management' style can hope to be sufficiently agile, responsive to customers, creative and focused on new product development, to survive when that survival depends on strategic improvisation and continuous innovation.

There are two huge and contradictory trends occurring in organizational structure today: globalization and fragmentation. Globalization is occurring because small organizations cannot achieve the scale and resource capacity needed to be viable, and fragmentation, the spinning off and incubation of small, narrowly focused 'best of class' companies, is occurring because large organizations are too unwieldy, inefficient and inflexible to be innovative and respond to customers' rapidly evolving needs. So we have today the worst of both worlds: large, fat, unresponsive global companies and emaciated unscalable small ones. Furthermore, because of today's concentration of money and power in the hands of increasing global corporate giants, this system is in disequilibrium, with dysfunctional non value-added consequences such as these:
  • Once-innovative companies like Microsoft are being besieged by antitrust authorities
  • Companies acquire other companies simply to break them up and close them down
  • New start-ups are designed expressly to be bought out before they actually produce anything
  • Investment analysts claim that synergies from corporate acquisitions create new value, and that subsequent break-ups into more focused and specialized companies also create value
  • Large organizations are rewarded for cruelly exploiting weak social and environmental laws in their subsidiary companies' countries and simultaneously creating unemployment at home, when they 'offshore' production to those countries
The recent macro-economic review by Credit Suisse First Boston, echoing the prognostications voiced by many economists at recent economic summits, foresees the evolution of today's corporate structures into three new, prevailing types of enterprise, which could fix the above dysfunctions (since different economists use different names for these, I've used my own):
  1. Global Utilities: Large organizations that provide world-class large-scale communication, asset management and distribution infrastructure.
  2. Producers: Small organizations that assemble resources and 'build to spec' technologies, tools, products and offerings, for entrepreneurs, project teams and consumers.
  3. Innovators: Small organizations that study human problems and needs and create, discover and design solutions to them.
The Global Utilities would be either publicly owned or tightly regulated, operated on a not-for-profit basis. They would be measured on efficiency. The Producers and Innovators would be entrepreneurial partnerships, very project focused. Producers would be measured on agility, quality and customization, and Innovators on creativity, quality and quality-of-life improvement. All three types of enterprise would be measured additionally, of course, on customer satisfaction. None would be hierarchical, and few would spend an entire career with a single organization. I have argued elsewhere that, in fact, with today's technologies there is no need for any of us to have to work more than a few hours a week to provide a high level of well-being for everyone anyway -- the fact that we do work so unnecessarily hard and long is a function of the sustained myths of our modern Western culture and the extravagant and unsustainable wastefulness of our civilization.

Those with an entrepreneurial bent would form, or join, one or more Producer or Innovator enterprises over their working life. Those with a productivity bent would gravitate towards the Global Utilities. Many others would be self-employed, providing niche advisory services to all three types of enterprise.

You may think this is a very idealistic view of how 'organizations should be reorganized', but it is also a very logical one, and one that could easily be achieved today because of growing dissatisfaction with the dysfunctionality of today's organizational structures, and the ability, thanks to the Internet and other powerful new 'organizing' infrastructure technologies, to bring this 'reorganization of organizations' about. Only a poverty of imagination, opposition from elite vested interests, and the inequitable distribution of power and resources, all of them well within human capability to rectify, are preventing us from realizing this potentially liberating, perhaps even Earth-saving, reorganization. In fact, this customer-driven revolution is already happening, quickly, quietly, and non-violently, its first manifestation being what Shoshana Zuboff in her best-seller calls The Support Economy: Why Corporations Are Failing Individuals and The Next Episode of Capitalism.

The advent of a New Economy, with Innovators focused intently and exclusively on solving real human needs and problems (and not on the hyper-marketed, artificial incrementalism and 'copycat' and 'sequel' new product development that today's risk-averse oligopolies have our most creative minds fruitlessly working on) offers the potential of astounding acceleration of innovation and resolution of seemingly intractable human problems: pollution, over-population, unemployment, inequality, human and animal suffering, disease prevention, war and cruelty, biodegradation, mental illness. Some would say it's not a moment too soon.

What does all this mean for today's company looking to jump-start its innovation programs and processes, and today's individual looking to participate in making his or her own, or his or her employer's, enterprise more innovative? From the discussion above we can add six principles of innovation strategy to the eight principles developed earlier:
  1. Hierarchy and Autocracy are the Enemies of Innovation: There is a strong creative tension between individuals and the communities they elect to or are asked to be part of, caused by divergent needs, drivers, and behaviours. Each individual and each community needs its own space. Flat, small, responsive, democratic organizations are inherently more innovative.
  2. Innovation Needs an Urgent Problem: True innovation only occurs where there is consensus that there is an important problem to solve and a sense of urgency to solve it.
  3. Cooperation is Replacing Competition: Competition is now dysfunctional, a vestige of earlier times of resource scarcity, and cooperation is now essential to effective innovation.
  4. The Customer Rules: The customer is now king and needs only better decision making tools to become the sole driver of economic activity, rendering obsolete the need for marketing, branding, and other producer-driven mechanisms of influencing customer actions.
  5. Female Organizational Style is More Innovative Than Male: As shown in the table below, organizational structures, processes and behaviours more commonly associated with businesses run by women are gaining traction in the New Economy, and that bodes well for innovation.
  6. The Emerging New Economy Will Accelerate Innovation: Despite the current waves of globalization, corporatism and increased concentration of wealth and power, the Internet and other new technologies will inexorably break the strangle-hold of riak-averse oligopolies and unleash a new age of astonishing innovation.
Attribute
Female Organization
Male Organization
Organizational Structure
Networked
Hierarchical
Decision-Making Process
Consensual
Command-and-Control
Team Operation Process
Self-Selected, Self-Directed
Appointed, Managed
Leadership Selection Process
Self-Selected
Imposed
Leadership Style
Unassuming, Demonstrative, Responsive
Dictatorial, Self-Aggrandizing, Condescending
Employment Model
Project to Project
Up or Out
What Gets Rewarded
Potential Value of Skills, Experiences, Relationships
Past Performance
Who Makes Enterprise Decisions
Small, Improvisational 'Centre'
Disconnected 'Top'
Key Advantage
Flexible
Efficient

Attributes of 'Female' versus 'Male' Organization Structures
(Adapted from Imperato & Harari, 'Jumping the Curve')

So now we have fourteen principles to guide us in creating innovative organizations.

Next Tuesday: In the final part of this paper, a prescription that draws on these principles, that organizations can use to evolve themselves into innovative companies. It will also explain the new 8-step Innovation Process diagram at the top of this post.

AVOIDING THE
LANDMINES IN ENTREPRENEURIAL
BUSINESS


AVOIDING THE
LANDMINES IN ENTREPRENEURIAL
BUSINESS
05/04/2004 09:08 PM
stepping stones
Diagram ©2004 The Caring Enterprise Coach
Today, the average North American entrepreneurial business lasts just four years, the average sole proprietorship even less. Yet entrepreneurship is not rocket science; it's nothing more (or less) than making a living for yourself with your business partners, instead of depending on some indifferent corporation to provide you with a living wage. Running a business is certainly no more difficult than raising a family, or landing a job and building a career with a big company. The essentials of entrepreneurship could easily be taught in every school, and there'd still be plenty of time left for the rest of the school curriculum. But, perhaps because big corporations and the governments they control want the 'labour force' to be meek, subservient, fearful and insecure, most people have come to perceive entrepreneurship as a complex and difficult art, fraught with danger, unprofitable, emotionally scarring, and demanding of enormous courage and energy. "It's certainly not for everyone", I keep hearing.

Entrepreneurship requires self-knowledge of what you're happy doing, what you're especially good at, how much you're willing to put into your enterprise and what you expect to get out of it. Without this self-knowledge, you're likely to be as miserable in your own business as working for some unappreciative boss, and that unhappiness will bear directly on its success. Beyond that, all you need are common sense, self-confidence, and a modicum of four key, learnable skills:
  • creativity (the ability to discover and apply new ideas),
  • communication (written and oral),
  • information processing (the ability to distil, analyze and interpret it), and
  • interpersonal (listening, appreciation, connecting, persuading).
Then it's simply a matter of learning and following the process that every entrepreneur has learned by trial and error,  to set up and operate your own business successfully, on your own terms, and actually have fun doing it.

One of the 15 steps in the process of establishing and running an enterprise is avoiding the landmines. In MBA school they now call this Risk Management. This article identifies ten of the major landmines for entrepreneurs, using some real-life examples. I don't believe any of the enterprises described below is still in business (though some of the entrepreneurs have moved on, learned their lesson, and succeeded in other businesses):
  1. Copycat businesses: Thirty years ago I did some financial consulting for a small start-up cruise ship operation. They acquired and completely renovated a ship, which was lovely, got the licenses, hired the appropriate staff, set up the business systems, and then waited for the customers to roll in. After all, the competing operations on the same run were all fully booked. But this operation was an unknown quantity, and before they realized that just being similar to a successful and busy business wasn't enough to succeed, they sailed off into the sunset, empty. Franchisees beware.
  2. Over-estimating the market: Consultants love to sell you spreadsheets that will 'forecast' your income and cash flow. An inventor friend of mine used one of these to persuade himself to produce and sell a new organic nutritional supplement he had developed. His research showed that the annual sales of this type of product North America-wide was $X billion. The spreadsheet encouraged him to plug this number in, along with his estimate of what share of this market he could capture over three years. Needless to say, he never sold anywhere close to this amount of product, because that's not how you go about forecasting sales.
  3. Being too far ahead of or behind the market: A client of mine bought the North American rights to a new technology that would extrude a rugged, colour-fast plastic that could be used in decking, fencing, and other outdoor applications. He spent a fortune setting up the manufacturing plant. Problem is, he did this in the 1980s, when plastics were distrusted as 'cheap', wood was cheap, and creosote in pressure-treated lumber was not yet known to be a carcinogen. Being 10-15 years ahead of the market cost him his life savings.
  4. Biting off too much: A company that I was brought in to help liquidate had been doubling its sales and employee headcount every nine months. They were providing turnkey computer networking equipment and installations to mid-size companies, and had recently moved upscale to large corporations, school boards and government departments. As its receivables and inventories soared, it started paying more money for qualified talent, and its suppliers and bank both put it on short leash. Finally, despite record monthly sales, it simply ran out of cash. The owner turned down two very opportunistic 'investors', who wanted control of the business in return for working capital, and the bank pulled the plug.
  5. Not listening to the customer, or offering a solution in search of a problem: A lot of entrepreneurs are inventors, scientists, artists, artisans, administrators, teachers or managers. Sales is not their forte, and they're more comfortable working with ideas, materials, plans or systems than with those pesky people called customers. If you're not at home spending a lot of face time with customers, better partner with someone who is. If you want to see what happens if you don't, just browse any of the free software sites on the Web and see how many downloads most of them have. Some of them are quite intriguing, but because they don't meet a customer need, they'll never be more than that. Great prescription for a hobby, deadly for a business.
  6. Not consulting with or listening to the right advisors: A client of our firm in the early 1990s, a company which had been in the commercial printing business for 80 years, brought us in for some technology and corporate finance consulting. As we learned about the business it became obvious, first, that they could not afford the new equipment they proposed to buy, and secondly, that their profit margins were going through the floor. They had built their reputation on high quality printing work, but the market was no longer willing to pay for it. The new equipment would allow them to automate and eliminate some labour costs (and keep up with newer competitors with no sunk costs), but the cost of the new equipment would exceed the savings. We advised the company they needed to find some new markets, new higher-margin products, and new customers who would pay more for their quality work, or else drastically cut costs. They were convinced their customers would stay loyal, and the market for quality printing would rebound. They didn't, and the company shut its doors two years later.
  7. Blowing the budget: As most women will tell you (but many men seem unable to fathom), budgeting is simply a matter of ensuring that the cash going out doesn't exceed the cash coming in. The problem is, every start up costs more -- sometimes two or three times more -- than initially expected. It takes enormous self-discipline, patience, pacing, and sometimes financial creativity, to mete out dollars at a rate that will ensure there is enough cash to launch the business under the worst case scenario. I know of a dozen businesses that closed before they opened because they failed to do so, and others that lost control of their business unwillingly because that was the price for a late cash infusion. 'Risk Capital' might be more accurately called 'Heartbreak Capital' -- it is obscenely expensive.
  8. Groupthink: Back in the 1970s I was appointed Deputy Receiver for a computer and peripherals distributor. They had been put on 'close watch' by the bank, and I had to get authorization for, and sign, every cheque. While I was there I attended and took notes at management meetings. I was assailed at each meeting when I presented my factual reports on profit and cash flow. I was nicknamed The Undertaker for my 'relentless pessimism', and almost physically ejected when I questioned the validity of some unsupported fees that had been paid by the much-loved CFO, who was on leave of absence looking after a very sick relative. The six-man management team, intact since the start of the company and each heavily personally invested in the company, used to come out of their meetings with cheers and high fives, confident, contrary to all logic, that the company was poised for turnaround and sales 'in the pipeline' would soon bring a return to happy days. They would feed off each others' boundless optimism. They just needed to work harder. Happier days never came, and the CFO, it turns out, had defrauded the company to pay for his relative's substantial medical bills.
  9. Litigation: A small biotech company whose CEO I met at a conference a few years ago was bemoaning the huge cost of registering and defending patents. He said they had been forced to sell off one promising product to a competitor in order to pay their legal bills to defend their other intellectual capital. That had slowed them down to the point they now feared that another competitor would beat them to market, rendering the results of the litigation largely moot. Big companies can afford armies of expensive lawyers. For small companies, significant litigation can spell disaster. The competitive advantage of the entrepreneur is agility -- when products get mired in legal wrangles, it may be better to cut bait and move on to other ventures than to fight adversaries with much deeper pockets in court.
  10. Buying the MBA hype: Graduates of business school are taught how to be middle managers of large enterprises. Unfortunately, that knowledge often don't translate well to entrepreneurial businesses. A client of mine brought in a young, very successful MBA grad (he had his own daily spot on one of the local radio stations), who had, it appeared, no experience at all with entrepreneurial business. The company, which was modestly profitable, bought the young man's well-delivered 'grow or die' message and decided to 'go upscale'. They spent a small fortune on advertising, and set up a sales office and warehouse in another country. Unfortunately, the media in which the ads appeared were not the ones used by the company's customers, and there was not enough money to properly penetrate the foreign market. The expenses produced almost no growth and almost sank the company. They salvaged the situation, and their business, by finding an enterprising competitor in the foreign country who took over the hemorrhaging 'branch plant', and then striking a reciprocal marketing alliance with them.
Many entrepreneurs I know feel very lonely, exposed, and helpless. The big consulting firms aren't interested in them until they grow bigger or go public. The smaller firms are selling one or two specific products, and rarely have entrepreneurial skills to share. And these suppliers are expensive. The government is cheaper, but with a few notable exceptions they aren't very helpful either. As a result, many entrepreneurs have formed their own 'support groups', helping each other to avoid the landmines, and learning from each other's experiences and failures. Retired entrepreneurs are another good source of advice, and a quarterly business breakfast with a trusted entrepreneur or advisor with some experience in the trenches can be an excellent investment. These breakfasts don't need an agenda -- they're run as an informal 'interview', with the advisor asking pertinent, open-ended questions and listening and offering counsel and options and ideas. They are a critical element of what my new business, The Caring Enterprise Coach, offers.

Another technique entrepreneurs can employ to alert themselves to potential landmines is establishing an Advisory Board made up of people who have well-rounded business experience, knowledge of markets, and skills the entrepreneur and his partners lack. Such Advisory Boards are often reciprocal, offering mutual support and advice in lieu of fees. I am constantly surprised how few entrepreneurs use such 'support groups', relying instead on their own instincts, the counsel of inexperienced and costly 'professional advisors', and others (bankers, customers, franchisors, and various 'agencies') who have only a nominal, and purely financial, interest in the entrepreneur's success. Some 'support groups' and networks have been set up as money-making ventures, but these tend to be unwieldy and their members terribly needy -- ten people looking for advice and new customers for every one capable of offering useful information or counsel in return. It's best to create your own.

The problem, of course, is that most entrepreneurs are paradoxically too busy fighting fires and avoiding landmines, to be able to invest time finding and networking with support groups and other valuable advisors who can help them avoid the next round of fires and landmines. But, despite the failings of the first generation Social Networking tools, such tools hold enormous promise. Although Shoshana Zuboff coined the term The Support Economy to refer to federations of businesses working together to support their shared customers, the first true Support Economy may well be entrepreneurs supporting each other.

WHY DOES
SMALL BUSINESS VOTE CONSERVATIVE?


WHY DOES
SMALL BUSINESS VOTE CONSERVATIVE?
06/18/2004 01:09 PM
no left turnTime for another of life's imponderables. Both in Canada and the US, family farmers and small business people have, in recent years, consistently voted conservative, and show every intention of doing so again this year. This makes absolutely no sense: Most farm states and provinces are net recipients of government largesse (i.e. they receive in equalization payments and services more than they pay for, subsidized by the more urban and more liberal states and provinces). And even though in the past 20 years conservative governments have spent more than liberal governments, that money has largely gone to tax cuts for the very rich and defense spending, creating huge deficits that small farmers and small business people have to repay in taxes, and receive almost no benefit from.

I talked to a few local farmers and small business people to try to find out why they vote conservative. This small sample may not be representative, but what they told me was:
  • They perceive liberal governments to be based in, and focused on, the big cities. Even in the suburbs this anti-urban feeling is strong, and translates into an anti-liberal (rather than pro-conservative) vote.
  • They are very proud people, who like to think they are independent and don't need government help. So a liberal saying he's going to provide more assistance for small farmers and small businesspeople might actually be insulting them rather than wooing them. To those that have never lived through a depression (or learned its lessons), government handouts "encourage laziness". Small business still buys the 'free market' myth, whereas big business knows it's a myth and perpetrate it strictly as a power lever.
  • They really have no idea how government works, where the money goes, how they benefit from it, or how bigger corporations benefit much more than they do due to various government subsidies. The concept that tax cuts = service cuts, and that big corporations are at least as inefficient as big government, is lost on these guys. They don't understand that it's they who have to pay for that inefficiency, in inflated consumer prices and in taxes for big corporation handouts.
  • Quite aside from economics, they are socially conservative, as Lakoff defines the term. Homosexuality frightens them, liberated women frighten them, immigrants frighten them, government frightens them. They are terrified by crime (and, by extension, 'terrorism') and see it as a sign of moral decay, in black and white terms. They know in their hearts that you can't turn back the clock, but emotionally they want to, and that nostalgia and fear is a powerful weapon that Republicans and Conservatives are using to their advantage. Many people vote with their hearts, not with their heads, a lesson most liberals still haven't learned.
Yesterday the US House of Representatives passed a Republican bill that would give $140 billion in tax breaks to "businesspeople and farmers". Who benefits? "Companies with foreign corporate profits, timber companies, oil & gas drillers, movie studios, wine distributors, manufacturers of bows and arrows, and tobacco farmers". The rest of us, including small farmers and small businesspeople, will foot the bill. But I'll bet that if small farmers and small businesspeople are even aware of the bill, they won't be outraged and might even be more inclined to vote Republican because "it's pro-business". And the Democrats, whose Southern flank supported the bill because of the tobacco subsidy, are really in no position to shout foul. In a country with only two parties both feeding at the same trough, the rich & powerful win and everyone else loses.

In Canada, which has five parties to choose from, the 'first past the post' electoral system undoes the benefits of party pluralism. With the three small parties all socially liberal, Canadian liberals are forced to 'vote strategically', which means voting for the Liberal Party instead of their real choice, the NDP or the Green Party, to prevent the 30% of Canadian conservatives, who have only one voting choice, from stealing the election. We'll find out in ten days whether they did so or not.

Alas, both the US Republican and the Canadian Conservative parties are consistently and heavily propped up by small farmers and small businesspeople. Without that support, these parties would be history. It doesn't make any sense, but it's the reality that both right-wing parties are counting on for election success this year. It's a brilliant con.

A
PRESCRIPTION FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION -
PART THREE


A
PRESCRIPTION FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION -
PART THREE
04/27/2004 01:12 PM
Four years ago I wrote a well-received paper entitled A Prescription for Business Innovation: Creating Technologies that Solve Basic Human Needs. I've updated it, broken it into three manageable pieces, and present the third part below. The first part, which reviewed the history of human innovation and technology, is here, the second part, which described the current environment for innovation, is here.

Six: Prescription for an Innovative Organization

Innov ProcessThe first four years of the century have seen some serious setbacks in business innovation. The corporatist-backed Bush administration has introduced legislation to reduce corporate liability to consumers, and has been extremely lax in enforcing social and environmental laws. Organizations like the RIAA and Nike have showed that the courts will allow large corporations great latitude to sue customers (including infringing on their privacy rights) and to lie to customers in their advertising (about sweatshop operations, offshoring etc.) Corporations like Enron have abused public trust and destroyed thousands of families' livelihoods and life savings. And massive defense and security expenditures have siphoned off funds that might have been invested in innovation, and have made corporations and lenders nervous about any investment while governments and corporations are so seriously overextended and exposed to interest rate fluctuations. The result is a climate of great animosity between corporations and customers, and unprecedented risk aversion.

At the same time, recent surveys indicate a growing corporate awareness that "you cannot cut (or offshore) your way to greatness", that the limit to improving profitability by reducing costs and margins has now more or less been reached, and that innovation must again move to the forefront if corporations are to have any hope of sustaining that profitability.

So corporations are looking for low-cost, effective ways to develop new products, new processes, new delivery channels and new technologies that will meet important human needs, provide real value to customers, and be affordable by those customers. This challenge occurs at a time when the distribution of wealth among customers is massively skewed, both within and between nations, towards a tiny elite, when many governments and most corporations and individuals are buried under a crushing debt load, and when the need for innovation to solve critical environmental, social and political problems has never been higher. Simply put, we are living in an age when we cannot afford innovation, and cannot afford to be without it. Perhaps the most critical innovation need therefore is for creative mechanisms to finance, price and pay for the costs of innovation itself. Funding, pricing, and cost management are now inseparable parts of the innovation process.

The prescription I propose draws on a wide variety of innovation processes that have been advanced by thought leaders on the subject, especially during the 1990s when the appetite for investment in innovation peaked, including Peter Drucker's, Cap Gemini's, Credit Suisse's, Gary Hamel's, and others listed in the bibliography below. This prescription draws as well from several innovation processes that I am personally aware of from my years working with Ernst & Young and its clients, and some lessons from how nature, which has been innovating since long before we appeared on the planet, goes about it.

This prescription has eighteen steps in eight stages illustrated in the chart above: Listen, Understand, Organize, Create, Experiment, Listen Again, Design, and Implement. The three stages shown in blue -- Understanding, Organizing and Implementing -- are analytical processes, well-suited to the left-brained deductive thinkers who predominate in most organizations. The three stages shown in green -- Creating, Experimenting, and Designing -- are creative processes, better suited to right-brained inductive thinkers who are relatively scarce in most organizations. The two Listening stages shown in red are communication processes, that need to involve customers and other stakeholders, and everyone in the organization involved in the innovation process. Assigning (or contracting) the right people for each stage in the process is essential to its effectiveness, and to its affordability. If it's done well, it can draw on the strengths of everyone inside and outside the organization who has a stake in a successful innovation effort.

Here are the eighteen steps. They are in reasonably sequential order, but are somewhat recursive: For example, as part of creating alternative solutions (step 12) it may be necessary to go back and scan for some additional ideas (step 1). Who should do each step depends to some extent on the industry and size of your organization: Large organizations may benefit from having a dedicated Innovation Team responsible for this, while in a very small organization it may be a scheduled part-time task of the whole management team, drawing as well on the diverse backgrounds and ideas of an informal Advisory Board.

Listen

1. Listen broadly for ideas: Appoint your Innovation Team and have them set up an 'environmental scan' that systematically looks for innovations and connections not only in your industry but also outside it, outside your country, outside of business entirely. Have the Team read about, learn about, and meet with people from the broadest possible spectrum of human enterprise and natural discovery. Subscribe to journals like Innovation, and the RSS feeds of periodicals and websites that report ideas and new technologies from a wide range of disciplines. Reward members of the Team for serendipitous readings and meetings, debrief with them promptly and regularly, filter, refine and inventory their ideas and learnings for consideration at the Understand, Create and Design stages of the innovation process. Inputs: readings, newsfeeds, conferences, interviews, meetings. Outputs: a manageable inventory of ideas and insights (categorized and contextualized appropriately so that they can be simply understood and practically applied).

2. Listen to 'pathfinder' customers, competitors, and colleagues: Plug yourself in to the 'voice of the customer'. Set a minimum time quota for everyone in your organization to spend face-to-face with business customers, or with customers' customers or end consumers. Identify 'pathfinder' customers -- those  who are most attuned to their organization's future direction and its need to change. Employ a 'Think the Customer Ahead' program that engenders effective listening, elicitation skills, story-telling skills, and creative thinking skills , a capacity explained in Imparato & Harari's book Jumping the Curve. Often the customer isn't able to articulate his or her needs in a way that lends itself to quick technology solution development. Listening to the customer is an iterative process, that entails learning about the customer's business, understanding the things that keep them awake at night, suggesting a lot of 'what if's', proffering opportunities, points-of-view and possibilities, not just asking baldly about needs and offering off-the-shelf solutions. Connect with customers indirectly as well, using all the media at your disposal -- phone surveys, e-mail, website surveys, customer satisfaction surveys (with lots of open-ended questions), self-diagnostic tools, videoconferences, etc., to capture as much information as you can about your customers, their customers, and their markets. Inputs: conversations, interviews, surveys. Outputs: needs, ideas, stories, industry future state visions, five-forces and SWOT analyses.

3. Listen to the front lines: Talk with the people who hear directly from customers and other stakeholders every day -- people in sales, customer service, even delivery and reception staff. Ask them what they're hearing, and what they think most needs improvement or rethinking. Create 'space' -- physical and electronic -- where everyone in the organization can surface, discuss and advance problems, needs and ideas collaboratively. Let anyone 'subscribe' to the inventory of news and ideas created in step 1 above. Consider maintaining a running list of the company's Top 10 Challenges to encourage focus and creative thought from everyone in the organization. Make sure top-level executive sponsorship for innovation is visible to everyone on the front lines.  Give people time off their 'regular work' to focus on organized innovation projects, and tools and process guidance to use that time effectively. Reward front-line people for new product and other innovative ideas that they surface from their conversations with customers and others. Inputs: conversations, idea & collaboration spaces, interviews. Outputs: needs, ideas, stories.

Understand

4. Understand who your actual and potential customers are: Study companies like The Body Shop that know their customers, their needs, their buying preferences and criteria intimately. These are companies that spend a lot of face time with customers and have rigorous processes in place to capture what they learn, probe what they need, and explore the potential market for new innovations. And identify and get out and meet with potential customers as well, to understand why they're not already customers and what could change that. And then have your Innovation Team cast a wider net and ask who might be customers that are currently not served by either your company or your competitors. Learn the lessons of Christensen's The Innovator's Dilemma and The Innovator's Solution -- how disruptive innovations can (sometimes inadvertently) transform whole industries, and how that presents your company with both threats and opportunities that could completely change the profile or even definition of your customers. Inputs/Outputs: list of actual and potential customers and what they currently buy, could be buying, and will and won't be buying in the future, and why.

5. Understand and respect what end-consumers want and need: and based on that
6. Understand what immediate customers will need: Start with the end-consumer of your products and services, and the end-consumer of the products of your immediate customers. Their buying patterns, needs and preferences will determine the success of your customers, and that will in turn determine their buying patterns, needs and preferences. The end-consumer has the ultimate power, and, unlike corporations', their buying decisions are based on broader and more subjective criteria than business need and affordability. They buy things they want, not just things they need. If you sell to the auto industry, you need to understand why consumers, against all logic, buy SUVs. And if your company is making money from sweatshop labour or old growth forests, better come clean now. Business needs to end its abusive relationship with consumers -- overcharging them, misleading them, suing them, and selling them inferior, imported merchandise and services. Once consumers realize their true marketplace power, they will get back at adversarial suppliers with a vengeance. Business needs to respect them, respond to them, and be responsible members of the communities in which they operate. The Reputation Economy isn't here yet, but it's coming. If you cause consumers to dislike you or distrust you, you'll soon be dead. Inputs/Outputs: current state analysis and future state vision of wants and needs for both current and future immediate customers, and end-consumers, and a resultant future state vision and emerging needs profile for your industry.

7. Understand why these wants and needs aren't already met: Here's the hard part. Things are usually the way they are for a reason. You know there are wants and needs that aren't being met. The challenge is not to throw in the towel when you find out why. The technology doesn't exist? The solution would be very costly or risky to develop? The solution is not affordable to customers? The solution is too radical for customers to accept or too complex for them to understand? The organization currently lacks the capacity or competencies to produce the solution? That's what innovation is about. Take up the challenge with your eyes open about what must be overcome, but take up the challenge. If it was easy someone else would have already done it. Inputs/Outputs: list of challenges.

Organize

8. Organize those with a stake in solving the problem: Now you know what needs to be done, the next step is to organize the troops. Who can help solve the problem, assess the alternatives, provide the needed resources? Outputs: project team member list, including 'pathfinder' customers and other outsiders. (Note that the project team is responsible for solving a specific problem or need, while the Innovation Team has oversight over the entire innovation effort of the organization -- they aren't the same group).

9. Organize the program for solving the problem: There are a lot of techniques and methods that you can use to break through a problem and come up with solutions. The bibliography below is replete with them. In my experience, creative minds need a very broad framework (schedule, budget, high-level process) and a lot of freedom to figure out how to solve the problem within that framework. Self-organizing, self-managed innovation project teams seem to work well in some organizations but not in others. If you insist on imposing more discipline on the process, more hoops to jump through, control points and early-stage go/no-go filters, make sure the people you're imposing it on see the value in these constraints, and that they don't squeeze the boldest and potentially most successful ideas out in the process. Outputs: project schedule, budget, program.

10. Organize the resources needed to solve the problem: The project team needs sufficient tools and knowledge to be able to understand the problem, the customer need, and the variables that could impact the potential solutions. Inputs: all the Outputs from steps 1-7 above, redrafted into a cogent and digestible form.

Create

11. Create an environment and capability for innovation: Give the Innovation Team and the project teams permission to fail, and teach them how to fail early and inexpensively. Prevent executives from pushing their 'pet' projects to the detriment of others. Don't let the 'black hats' deep-six good, hairy, audacious ideas prematurely, and ensure that 'black hat' behaviours are not rewarded by senior management. Help the team avoid slipping into excessive caution or incrementalism. Keep the marketing group from unduly influencing the process with antiquated ideas for 'creating market demand' and launching products with press releases and self-serving promotional and advertising campaigns -- In the emerging customer-driven market these techniques will no longer make a mediocre product a success. Provide rewards and incentives for team members, and for other contributors to the innovation effort. Don't tolerate hoarding of ideas and knowledge, or inter-department 'charges' that block knowledge transfer and cross-functional collaboration. Share credit for good ideas and successes, and don't make innovation an area of internal competition. Help bright, creative, quiet people find their voice, and let people promote 'crazy' ideas without fear of ridicule. Teach the Innovation Team and the project teams (and others in the organization who show interest) techniques that will enhance their creativity and improve the innovation process, and give them time and resources to discover other techniques and try them out. Invest adequate, patient capital and resources for innovation. Give ideas sufficient time to find their market but don't throw good money after bad, no matter how well-intentioned. Understand sunk costs and learn from failures. Consider letting those involved in the innovation 'invest' personally in return for a share of the ultimate revenues or profits: Having some 'skin in the game' can be very motivating and empowering. Inputs: time, training, tools, space, sponsorship, leadership and resources. Outputs: people who are inspired, capable and encouraged to contribute productively to the innovation effort.
 
12. Create lots of alternative solutions: Don't put everything at risk on one option. Use scenario planning and other techniques to identify and assess alternatives. Don't reject the really far-out alternatives prematurely -- cost/risk/benefit decisions usually can't be properly made until the customers have had the chance to say their piece again in step 15 below. Outputs: alternative solutions.

Experiment

13. Experiment: Try many things, learn fast from failures, tinker, iterate, combine, transfer: Try several alternatives simultaneously in different markets to speed up the assessment process. Use rapid prototyping and other iteration techniques to expose as many alternatives to the market as possible. Outputs: test results.

Listen Again

14. Listen to potential customers and help them imagine: Use prototypes and stories to make the innovative product, service, channel or technology as concrete as possible. Beware customers' propensity to say 'yes' at this stage when there's no required commitment. Go back to what you learned from customers in steps 1-7 and recite what you heard back to the customers for confirmation, explaining how the innovation addresses the need articulated by the customers. Listen objectively for confirmation or dissonance. Outputs: customer evaluations

15. Listen to acceptance criteria -- the ‘if’s: If the product appears to meet the need, the next task is to assess the customers' buying criteria: price and affordability, convenience, options, delivery time, upgradability etc. Some of these criteria may be show-stoppers that will require re-invention or other creative brainstorming, while others may be able to be addressed in the design stage below. Outputs: customer buying criteria

16. Listen to ‘what could go wrong’: Here's where you let the 'black hats' say their piece: What competitive threats exist or could arise? Is the innovation vulnerable to disruptive innovation from unexpected sources? Are there unforeseen production, quality control, political, regulatory, financial, marketing, or servicing landmines? What's the shelf-life? Could it become a commodity prematurely? Will it be prohibitively expensive to produce or to buy? Will it cannibalize existing product sales? Is it a strategic fit for the organization? Some of these 'what could go wrongs' may require re-invention or other creative resolution by the project team, while others may be able to be addressed in the design stage below. Outputs: list of threats and risks, and resolution plan.

Design

17. Design: consider customer-valued attributes, cost, intuitive ease of use, ease of change, ease of enhancement: The greatest idea in the world can still be torpedoed by bad design. The designer has to be told, in no uncertain terms, what attributes are important to the customer, how much at most the solution can cost, and the trade-off between ease-of-use and power. Technology products especially are often over-engineered because additional functions and features are easy and inexpensive to add, but they add complexity disproportionate to the benefits of the additional functionality, often to the point of turning off potential customers. And in this age of constant upgrades and inter-operability requirements, the solution must be easy to change, redesign and enhance. Inputs: specifications based on Outputs from steps 12-16 above. Outputs: completed designs.

Implement

18. Make the final go/no-go decision, then implement: If there are still several alternatives on the drawing board, whittle them down to a manageable number. If necessary, send the idea back for reinvention (step 11), re-testing (step 13) or redesign (step 17). If the previous steps have been done properly, this step should be the easiest. Once the decision has been made to go, the set-up, production, viral marketing, sales, distribution, employee and user training, partnering, after-sales service, success measurement and continuous improvement should be problem-free, since the 'what could go wrong' possibilities have already been considered and addressed, and people from all functional areas of the organization should have been involved and consulted during the Create and Design stages.

Seven: Applying the Prescription: Some Examples

To give you a flavour for how this prescription could work in practice, here are eight fundamental business problems from different industries, and some innovations that have recently been (or are currently being) successfully commercialized to solve them. In each case, the solution shown could reasonably have been derived using the principles and process in the prescription above:

Customer Problem / Need
Innovation / Technology Solution
Car and computer buyers can't get exactly what they want, and hate haggling with dealers.
Web sites let you design your own car or computer, find the closest model to your design, find the best price for that model, accept payment and deliver it to your door. Some will even take a completely custom order.
Television watchers find most fare awful, TV guides complicated, and VCRs even more complicated.
The new TiVo technology asks for and monitors your preferences, pulls e-schedules off the net & satellites, and automatically records and indexes your preferred shows, commercial-free, onto a hard drive.
Although newspapers are a terrible waste of paper, and hard to read on the commuter train, reading from a computer screen doesn't work either due to poor legibility and awkwardness.
Two innovations are converging on a solution to this: Erasable paper, which allows you to print out each day's newspaper onto the same recycled pages; and ultrathin large screens with memory, that allow you to read one page at a time on a crisp viewing device smaller than a paperback.
Clothing that gets torn or stained is cheaper and easier to replace than repair.
A new organic clothing technology has been developed, modelled after human skin, that heals and itself. There is even a 'spray-on' version that can help burn victims to heal without scarring.
Banks are facing 'spread' squeezes, forcing them to generate new revenues from user service charges instead of interest charges, but consumers hate service charges and see little value for money in them.
Progressive banks are offering customers a 'menu' of alternative ways of 'subscribing' to bank services, including variable rate (pay-per-use), fixed rate, 'frequent-flyer' rate (lower or no service charges for users who use many of the bank's services), and free-if-you-handle-it-yourself rates. They are also offering a variety of new services that use the Internet to ignore geography (offering mortgages and business loans on-line worldwide) and exploit existing infrastructure and knowledge (e.g. accounting and tax services, insurance, financial planning, credit management).
Retailers are caught in a squeeze between low-cost Power Centers and consumers' dissatisfaction with (and cost of) the 'retail experience'.
Car companies have invented the concept of 'try on' centers, where competitors share a low-cost, do-it-yourself space where consumers can try out competing models, and then place orders electronically that are delivered, to their specs, from a low-cost warehouse to the consumer's home. Where the 'retail experience' requires more than just try-outs, companies like Home Depot have created value-add services like education (how-to sessions) and adventure (rock climbing walls at some sporting goods stores) that now draw customers more powerfully than their products.
Audit firms have found their 'product' commoditized and vilified by regulators for not measuring what is now important to stakeholders.
A US University is exploring whether 'fraud insurance' would be cheaper than audits and just as satisfactory to stakeholders and regulators. Meanwhile, some firms have invented a variety of new ways to measure the value of a company, including EVA, Balanced Scorecards, and Social Responsibility Reporting.
Many people are intrigued with, and want, the benefits of computer and Internet technologies, but don't have the time or comfort with the technologies to use them.
High tech companies are inventing computer and Internet 'appliances' that perform a single task automatically, simply and transparently e.g. refrigerator that sends a message when items are out-of-stock, past their 'use before' date, or too cold or too warm.

Conclusion


This presentation was itself the result of addressing an unmet need: After reading dozens of books on innovation, I was unable to find one source that explained in clear terms what innovation is, in a business context, conveyed the urgent need for businesses to become more innovative, and provided an actionable prescription for doing so. This paper was initially developed to provide the Core Innovation Team of Ernst & Young with background on the history, current state and leading practices in business innovation, and I am now using it to develop part of a core curriculum on entrepreneurship, of which innovation is a critical element.

I hope this analysis has given you a better understanding of the subject and its importance, and some useful tools and ideas that you can use to make your organization more innovative as well. I would welcome the opportunity to continue the discussion on this subject, by e-mail or through the comments thread below. You can find more of my writings on business innovation in this index.

While I'm optimistic that this prescription will work within business and other organizations, large and small, I am less convinced that it will work to solve some of the more deep-seated human needs and inexorable problems that plague us today, such as global warming, pollution, the energy crisis, biodegradation, endemic war, violence, mental illness and disease, animal cruelty, urban sprawl and decay, crime, unemployment, and the inequitable distribution of resources, income, wealth and power. While the process should work in principle, it is unlikely that this process can be followed with sufficient rigour or resources without (a) a willingness by governments to spend much more money (paid for by taxes) to solve these problems, (b) a political will to solve such problems creatively and by consensus, rather than leaving it to private interests to address them or dealing with them by brute force, and (c) a much greater awareness, commitment and sense of responsibility by the body politic of the urgency and opportunity to solve these problems. But just as business will be driven once again to invest in innovation in the search to sustain profitability, it is likely that private citizens and public institutions will ultimately be driven to invest together in innovation in the search for a liveable, sustainable world. The process they then use will probably look a lot like this prescription.

Bibliography
  • Boston Consulting Group -- Innovation to Cash (annual survey of executive priorities), 2003
  • Cap Gemini -- The Adaptive Imperative, in Perspectives on Business Innovation, 2002
  • Chen, Eric and Ho, Kathryn Kai-ling --