An excellent resource in innovation and improvement is the use of Object Oriented Innovation. OOI is a very simple approach that yields the highest success in innovation and creativity.
The starting point of OOI is to define the end point. What is the desired outcome? What is the product or process that you need to achieve? What is the end game? Equally important as defining the ending point in which you want to achieve is insuring that the end point has value and is valued by the organization. You must connect the end product or process to the core values and mission of the organization. If it fits, you keep going. If it does not fit, you have to look to see if it should be eliminated, discontinued or repackaged in such a way that it will fit.
Without deference to how it is done now or who is involved now, the next phase of OOI is to determine how the end point is achieved. Identify the needed steps to deliver the product, service or project. Again, the challenging point in this step is to ignore how it is currently being done or how it was done before and concentrate on how it needs to be done. The step must include identifying resources needed, labor and time, regulations, laws and other requirements.
Since no leader works in a vacuum, the next step in OOI is to identify the areas of impact. What other departments will have to change the way they do things? Is there an impact on customers and end users? Are there organizational considerations and the egos of other leaders that may be in play? What is the human resource impacts such as changed hours or more or less people? What are the financial considerations? The effective innovation leader must now reconcile these realities without overly compromising the desired outcome and make some good judgments and decisions about the next course of action.
The final OOI step involves converting the identified process steps to action and delivering the desired outcome.
Showing posts with label innovation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label innovation. Show all posts
Monday, November 8, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 38-Creativity Dampeners
Before delving into the leadership role in driving innovation, a few comments and notes about creativity.
Creativity can be stymied in individuals and in organizations in a variety of ways. Among the most common dampeners of creativity is a lack of recognition for ideas. When an idea falls on deaf ears and is not acknowledged or validated in any manner, people will not provide creative solutions. Even worse than ignoring an idea, is if an idea is openly besmirched or ridiculed. When that occurs, ideas and creativity will be greatly diminished in the long term and people will be hesitant to ever participate in creative solutions or suggestions.
Other common dampeners include the proliferation of policy and procedure in a company. When all behaviors are defined by the dreaded P and P, there is little room for creative thought. Add a cumbersome process to revise policy and you will have a great recipe for no creativity.
Hyper rigidity is also a contributor to lack of creativity. When there are rules for the sake of rules and adherence to those rules are more important than achievement of results, creativity is diminished. Creativity is not stimulated through sameness.
A final piece of creative dampening is history. History is a poor indicator and predictor of what may work now. Many people look back and remember how something failed previously as an excuse to not try it again. Your history and your organization’s history should never be used to not attempt something anew. After all, people have changed, the environment has changed and it just might work this time around.
Stimulating creativity requires that an organization consistently reminds itself and the team members in the organization of what is really important. Is quality service more important than clocking in at eight? Is performance more important than rigidity? Is the quality of the end product more important than attendance at the mandatory Monday meeting?
Another creativity stimulant comes from a concept linked in this section. Personal change will tend to drive creative though process and stimulate the mind to seek different paths. Trying a new drive to work, rearranging your office and new working hours all stimulate creative thought. Change some patterns and habits and grow your creative output.
Without venturing into the spiritual or metaphysical realms, there are some other creative stimulants like listening to music (softly, of course), getting fresh air and exercise that are effective as well. One of the most overlooked creative stimulants is the gift of time to think. Supervisors, managers and leaders at all levels are very often consumed by their schedule. Things to do. Meetings. Tasks. None of that provides any time to sit back and sit back and think and be creative. The most effective leaders provide themselves some time to reflect, review and be creative. No interruptions, just thinking and being creative.
Creativity can be stymied in individuals and in organizations in a variety of ways. Among the most common dampeners of creativity is a lack of recognition for ideas. When an idea falls on deaf ears and is not acknowledged or validated in any manner, people will not provide creative solutions. Even worse than ignoring an idea, is if an idea is openly besmirched or ridiculed. When that occurs, ideas and creativity will be greatly diminished in the long term and people will be hesitant to ever participate in creative solutions or suggestions.
Other common dampeners include the proliferation of policy and procedure in a company. When all behaviors are defined by the dreaded P and P, there is little room for creative thought. Add a cumbersome process to revise policy and you will have a great recipe for no creativity.
Hyper rigidity is also a contributor to lack of creativity. When there are rules for the sake of rules and adherence to those rules are more important than achievement of results, creativity is diminished. Creativity is not stimulated through sameness.
A final piece of creative dampening is history. History is a poor indicator and predictor of what may work now. Many people look back and remember how something failed previously as an excuse to not try it again. Your history and your organization’s history should never be used to not attempt something anew. After all, people have changed, the environment has changed and it just might work this time around.
Stimulating creativity requires that an organization consistently reminds itself and the team members in the organization of what is really important. Is quality service more important than clocking in at eight? Is performance more important than rigidity? Is the quality of the end product more important than attendance at the mandatory Monday meeting?
Another creativity stimulant comes from a concept linked in this section. Personal change will tend to drive creative though process and stimulate the mind to seek different paths. Trying a new drive to work, rearranging your office and new working hours all stimulate creative thought. Change some patterns and habits and grow your creative output.
Without venturing into the spiritual or metaphysical realms, there are some other creative stimulants like listening to music (softly, of course), getting fresh air and exercise that are effective as well. One of the most overlooked creative stimulants is the gift of time to think. Supervisors, managers and leaders at all levels are very often consumed by their schedule. Things to do. Meetings. Tasks. None of that provides any time to sit back and sit back and think and be creative. The most effective leaders provide themselves some time to reflect, review and be creative. No interruptions, just thinking and being creative.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 36-Continuous Process Improvement
Continuous process improvement is the process of insuring that procedures, processes and operational elements are always working at peak efficiency and delivering the highest quality product.
Many organizations have implemented elaborate procedures and established committees to insure that they are always improving their processes. This section will describe a simpler method with equally powerful results.
Big time wrestling, boxing and mixed martial arts all utilize a champion/challenger system. Each of these sports (?) have a champion by weight class or experience level or by endorsing agency. This champion has established himself as the current best in the sport.
In order to continue to be the champion, the current title holder must take on challengers. If the current champion wins, that person remains the champion. If the challenger wins, that person will become the champion and prepare to take on new challengers.
The current way in which you do a thing is the champion. It does not have to be a big thing or it can be a very big thing but it is the champion. An innovative approach to continuous process improvement requires you to test a challenger against the current way that you are doing a piece of your business. If a new way or challenger is better, it becomes the new method. If a new way is not better, you stick with the way you are currently doing it.
The best part of this method is the lack of risk involved in the process. If the challenger is not better, you have not abandoned the existing methods. You have just challenged them. The champion/challenger method also insures that you do not engage in change and innovation for change and innovation’s sake.
Many organizations have implemented elaborate procedures and established committees to insure that they are always improving their processes. This section will describe a simpler method with equally powerful results.
Big time wrestling, boxing and mixed martial arts all utilize a champion/challenger system. Each of these sports (?) have a champion by weight class or experience level or by endorsing agency. This champion has established himself as the current best in the sport.
In order to continue to be the champion, the current title holder must take on challengers. If the current champion wins, that person remains the champion. If the challenger wins, that person will become the champion and prepare to take on new challengers.
The current way in which you do a thing is the champion. It does not have to be a big thing or it can be a very big thing but it is the champion. An innovative approach to continuous process improvement requires you to test a challenger against the current way that you are doing a piece of your business. If a new way or challenger is better, it becomes the new method. If a new way is not better, you stick with the way you are currently doing it.
The best part of this method is the lack of risk involved in the process. If the challenger is not better, you have not abandoned the existing methods. You have just challenged them. The champion/challenger method also insures that you do not engage in change and innovation for change and innovation’s sake.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 33-Collaborative Innovation
Brainstorming does not work.
That’s right. Brainstorming as most people think of it is highly ineffective and does not achieve the level of collaborative input desired. The brainstorming that incorporates twenty or so of your team members and peers with the obligatory facilitator, flip chart pad and colored markers does not work.
There is a pretty large population of people that will not share their ideas, suggestions and thoughts in this type of forum. Some people fear embarrassment, ridicule or even just speaking in front of a group. No matter how comfortable you make the environment, they are going to contribute very little or nothing at all. Worse yet, they may even openly mock the process because of their discomfort and pollute the participation of others. These people have great ideas, they just will not share them in a traditional brainstorming environment.
There is also a population of people that require time to process information and formulate ideas. They do not do well in an environment that rewards near auctioneer speed in conveying thoughts. They want to collect themselves, play around with various scenarios and have time to form something that meets their standards. Brainstorming sessions exclude the great ideas from this group.
Before we visit what processes work to achieve collaboration in innovation, we must examine why collaborative innovation is desirable. If you are an effective leader and have great ideas, why do you need the input from others?
The effective leader is looking for innovation partners and not just innovation participants. Ownership and buy-in are only achieved with participation. You cannot demand buy-in, sell buy-in or purchase buy-in. It is only achieved when others can willing participate in the process. As the leader, you get a team that believes they designed the innovation rather than was victimized by the innovation.
A collaborative approach to innovation also assists the leader in seeing potential unintended consequences of an new approach or change. The different views from your team and the perspectives they represent can be real eye-opening to the leader. They have operational level and daily knowledge that even the most in-tune leader will never know. Quite simply, they know what works and often, what is best for the customer or end user.
There is a short process to obtain collaborative input from your team or others in an innovation process. The first step is to announce the issue or process that you would like input about. As a general rule of thumb, give people a ten to twenty day window of time to think about what you want them to have ideas about.
The second step is to require, yes require, input. That is achieved by sending your team members a note or form with the identified issue or process and requesting that each team member produce three suggestions or ideas for how to perform it better. Establish a deadline and build a follow-up mechanism to insure you receive feedback from each team member or organizational participant. Upon receipt, be sure to thank each team member for the input, no matter the quality.
The next immediate interim step is to reconcile the written comments from your team. There are two areas of awe that occur here. First is the feedback that you will receive from the quietest members of your group. The ones that never speak in a staff meeting or traditional brainstorming session will come up with and articulate some great ideas. The second awe point relates to the degree of commonality. Commonality between your approach and theirs and commonality between their suggestions. Leaders who utilize this method report that out of hundreds of individual ideas, they can be edited down into a dozen or so common responses. Different words but same processes or suggestions.
The final step of this collaborative innovation model is the only public airing and it is a relatively brief one compared to traditional brainstorming. A group meeting is conducted and all the ideas are presented equally. The leader can include his or her suggestions and ideas on equal footing with other input and feedback at this time. With each idea out in the open, the leader or facilitator will begin reconciling ideas by pairing people, then in groups of four, groups of eight and finally the entire group to build ideas and suggestions that represent the entire group. Everyone participates and everyone is represented in this reconciliation. Ideas are formulated, documented and fully vetted. Each of the consolidation steps are time sensitive with short deadline periods to avoid over-pontification by any one group member. The team leader often excuses himself or herself from this process because of the influence they carry among team members.
Collaborative innovation takes a little more time and work but the results and the buy-in of affected stakeholders is dramatically better than dictated ideas and solutions.
That’s right. Brainstorming as most people think of it is highly ineffective and does not achieve the level of collaborative input desired. The brainstorming that incorporates twenty or so of your team members and peers with the obligatory facilitator, flip chart pad and colored markers does not work.
There is a pretty large population of people that will not share their ideas, suggestions and thoughts in this type of forum. Some people fear embarrassment, ridicule or even just speaking in front of a group. No matter how comfortable you make the environment, they are going to contribute very little or nothing at all. Worse yet, they may even openly mock the process because of their discomfort and pollute the participation of others. These people have great ideas, they just will not share them in a traditional brainstorming environment.
There is also a population of people that require time to process information and formulate ideas. They do not do well in an environment that rewards near auctioneer speed in conveying thoughts. They want to collect themselves, play around with various scenarios and have time to form something that meets their standards. Brainstorming sessions exclude the great ideas from this group.
Before we visit what processes work to achieve collaboration in innovation, we must examine why collaborative innovation is desirable. If you are an effective leader and have great ideas, why do you need the input from others?
The effective leader is looking for innovation partners and not just innovation participants. Ownership and buy-in are only achieved with participation. You cannot demand buy-in, sell buy-in or purchase buy-in. It is only achieved when others can willing participate in the process. As the leader, you get a team that believes they designed the innovation rather than was victimized by the innovation.
A collaborative approach to innovation also assists the leader in seeing potential unintended consequences of an new approach or change. The different views from your team and the perspectives they represent can be real eye-opening to the leader. They have operational level and daily knowledge that even the most in-tune leader will never know. Quite simply, they know what works and often, what is best for the customer or end user.
There is a short process to obtain collaborative input from your team or others in an innovation process. The first step is to announce the issue or process that you would like input about. As a general rule of thumb, give people a ten to twenty day window of time to think about what you want them to have ideas about.
The second step is to require, yes require, input. That is achieved by sending your team members a note or form with the identified issue or process and requesting that each team member produce three suggestions or ideas for how to perform it better. Establish a deadline and build a follow-up mechanism to insure you receive feedback from each team member or organizational participant. Upon receipt, be sure to thank each team member for the input, no matter the quality.
The next immediate interim step is to reconcile the written comments from your team. There are two areas of awe that occur here. First is the feedback that you will receive from the quietest members of your group. The ones that never speak in a staff meeting or traditional brainstorming session will come up with and articulate some great ideas. The second awe point relates to the degree of commonality. Commonality between your approach and theirs and commonality between their suggestions. Leaders who utilize this method report that out of hundreds of individual ideas, they can be edited down into a dozen or so common responses. Different words but same processes or suggestions.
The final step of this collaborative innovation model is the only public airing and it is a relatively brief one compared to traditional brainstorming. A group meeting is conducted and all the ideas are presented equally. The leader can include his or her suggestions and ideas on equal footing with other input and feedback at this time. With each idea out in the open, the leader or facilitator will begin reconciling ideas by pairing people, then in groups of four, groups of eight and finally the entire group to build ideas and suggestions that represent the entire group. Everyone participates and everyone is represented in this reconciliation. Ideas are formulated, documented and fully vetted. Each of the consolidation steps are time sensitive with short deadline periods to avoid over-pontification by any one group member. The team leader often excuses himself or herself from this process because of the influence they carry among team members.
Collaborative innovation takes a little more time and work but the results and the buy-in of affected stakeholders is dramatically better than dictated ideas and solutions.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Monday Mentor Week 23-Change Resistance
To fully understand change we must examine why people are resistant to change and there are many reasons and underlying factors.
In a working environment, change is resisted because it will lead to a loss of power. A person is currently performing at a high level and has achieved expertise in their area. With a change to a process or function, they will no longer have that level of expert power and they fear that their personal performance will no longer be recognized at a high level. Visualize someone typing along at 85 words per minute on their IBM Selectric typewriter and how they feel that their performance and expertise will be threatened by the introduction of the personal computer and word processing software.
Another primary cause of change resistance is found in a basic human dynamic. Humans need to have levels of stability in their lives. Attachment, connection and some predictability. For many people that stability is found at home or in connections outside of work. They have stable relationships with friends, relatives and community members. They have lived in the same place for a good chunk of time. There is predictability outside of work.
Other people do not have that stability at home and thusly seek it at work. Imagine someone who’s life is chaotic outside of work. No stability in relationships or predictability in routine or interactions. They come to work to seek the stability and attachment that is not there in their personal lives. These people will tend to be a little more resistant, if not down right hostile, towards change. This is another example of how important it is for a leader to know and understand their team members to lead effectively, especially in a changing environment.
Among the most common factors in change resistance is also a personal dynamic related to human behavior. I am married. I love my wife but there is an aging factor that occurs in relationships with individuals and organizations that is related. Early in our relationship, I opened all the doors, bought flowers for no reason, purchased mushy Hallmark cards and beat a path to be helpful around the house. Twenty five years later I still love my wife but my diligence on some of those early behavior has waned.
What occurs in interpersonal relationships, like with me and my wife, is comfort develops after performance is stabilized. Far more dangerous is that complacency follows comfort in most instances. In organizations, a person develops comfort in their job, performance and methods. Complacency and an auto-response type approach frequency follow. Another day, another dollar. Going through the motions. Punching the clock.
Any element of change rocks that complacency. It forces people off of the treadmill and requires them to think instead of auto-process. It makes the complacent uncomfortable.
Fear of the unknown is also a common factor in change resistance. When the future is defined and clear, with a known path towards it, there is little fear. When the future or even just tomorrow is unknown, clouded or veiled, the little darkroom of fear begins to process potential outcomes. Those outcomes, for a variety of reasons, is most often negative consequences associated with the change. That is where the “oh my gosh, I am going to loose my job” and “things will never be good or the same” type of comments originate.
The final change resistance factor is rather odd because it does not occur universally but it does occur with high frequency. Some people resist change because they fail to recognize any positive outcome from the change event or the changed process. They focus only on the loss of the current and not on any benefit derived from changing and evolving. My mother hates computers. Not for any particular reason but she hates them and everything about them. She will not touch them and experiments to help her embrace email and on-line banking have failed miserably. She see no benefit and only bad. Her identity will be stolen, viruses will infect, it costs too much, it wont work correctly.
Some of my mother’s octogenarian peers have discovered the joys of social networking, the efficiency of email and the fun of creating photo albums on the computer. Not my mom, all she sees is the negative outcome.
In a working environment, change is resisted because it will lead to a loss of power. A person is currently performing at a high level and has achieved expertise in their area. With a change to a process or function, they will no longer have that level of expert power and they fear that their personal performance will no longer be recognized at a high level. Visualize someone typing along at 85 words per minute on their IBM Selectric typewriter and how they feel that their performance and expertise will be threatened by the introduction of the personal computer and word processing software.
Another primary cause of change resistance is found in a basic human dynamic. Humans need to have levels of stability in their lives. Attachment, connection and some predictability. For many people that stability is found at home or in connections outside of work. They have stable relationships with friends, relatives and community members. They have lived in the same place for a good chunk of time. There is predictability outside of work.
Other people do not have that stability at home and thusly seek it at work. Imagine someone who’s life is chaotic outside of work. No stability in relationships or predictability in routine or interactions. They come to work to seek the stability and attachment that is not there in their personal lives. These people will tend to be a little more resistant, if not down right hostile, towards change. This is another example of how important it is for a leader to know and understand their team members to lead effectively, especially in a changing environment.
Among the most common factors in change resistance is also a personal dynamic related to human behavior. I am married. I love my wife but there is an aging factor that occurs in relationships with individuals and organizations that is related. Early in our relationship, I opened all the doors, bought flowers for no reason, purchased mushy Hallmark cards and beat a path to be helpful around the house. Twenty five years later I still love my wife but my diligence on some of those early behavior has waned.
What occurs in interpersonal relationships, like with me and my wife, is comfort develops after performance is stabilized. Far more dangerous is that complacency follows comfort in most instances. In organizations, a person develops comfort in their job, performance and methods. Complacency and an auto-response type approach frequency follow. Another day, another dollar. Going through the motions. Punching the clock.
Any element of change rocks that complacency. It forces people off of the treadmill and requires them to think instead of auto-process. It makes the complacent uncomfortable.
Fear of the unknown is also a common factor in change resistance. When the future is defined and clear, with a known path towards it, there is little fear. When the future or even just tomorrow is unknown, clouded or veiled, the little darkroom of fear begins to process potential outcomes. Those outcomes, for a variety of reasons, is most often negative consequences associated with the change. That is where the “oh my gosh, I am going to loose my job” and “things will never be good or the same” type of comments originate.
The final change resistance factor is rather odd because it does not occur universally but it does occur with high frequency. Some people resist change because they fail to recognize any positive outcome from the change event or the changed process. They focus only on the loss of the current and not on any benefit derived from changing and evolving. My mother hates computers. Not for any particular reason but she hates them and everything about them. She will not touch them and experiments to help her embrace email and on-line banking have failed miserably. She see no benefit and only bad. Her identity will be stolen, viruses will infect, it costs too much, it wont work correctly.
Some of my mother’s octogenarian peers have discovered the joys of social networking, the efficiency of email and the fun of creating photo albums on the computer. Not my mom, all she sees is the negative outcome.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Business Week: The Year in Innovation
In 2009 the world was no longer flat; much of it was flat broke. Deflated by slumping sales and income, companies roundly did what innovation consultants say they never should—they cut spending on research and development. The U.S. drug industry, historically one of the most lavish spenders on research and development, announced the elimination of a record 69,000 jobs this year, up 60% from 2008. At many companies, quick hits and line extensions replaced more costly, though potentially more rewarding, investments in game-changing inventions.
Still, creativity lives on. Among fresh or fringe approaches that became mainstream tools in 2009: trickle-up innovation, design thinking, and open innovation. And while innovation may no longer be the golden goose it was in flusher times, the penny-pinching has forced companies to break some bad habits—such as wantonly pursuing every new idea—which could help them roll out new money-making products and services as the recession eases and an economic recovery takes hold.
Read the Entire Article: http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/dec2009/id20091216_670846.htm
Still, creativity lives on. Among fresh or fringe approaches that became mainstream tools in 2009: trickle-up innovation, design thinking, and open innovation. And while innovation may no longer be the golden goose it was in flusher times, the penny-pinching has forced companies to break some bad habits—such as wantonly pursuing every new idea—which could help them roll out new money-making products and services as the recession eases and an economic recovery takes hold.
Read the Entire Article: http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/dec2009/id20091216_670846.htm
Monday, October 12, 2009
From Business Week: Change By Design
For those of you who have attended our Innovation or Change Management programs, this article will sound very familiar. Elements of Object Oriented Innovation, Champion Challenger Method and Managing the Cycle of Change are referenced.
By Tim Brown
As the center of economic activity in the developed world shifts inexorably from industrial manufacturing to knowledge creation and service delivery, innovation has become nothing less than a survival strategy. It is, moreover, no longer limited to new physical products but includes new sorts of processes, services, interactions, entertainment forms, and ways of communicating and collaborating.
These are exactly the kinds of human-centered tasks that designers work on every day, and over time they have evolved a body of skills to help them do it. It is time for this type of thinking—design thinking—to migrate outward and upward into the highest levels of leadership. Business leaders, hospital administrators, university professors, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) need to integrate the methods of the designer, just as designers need to broaden their reach from the crafting of objects to the shaping of services, experiences, and organizations. Design, in short, has become too important to be left to designers.
Read the rest of the article at: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_40/b4149054679916.htm
By Tim Brown
As the center of economic activity in the developed world shifts inexorably from industrial manufacturing to knowledge creation and service delivery, innovation has become nothing less than a survival strategy. It is, moreover, no longer limited to new physical products but includes new sorts of processes, services, interactions, entertainment forms, and ways of communicating and collaborating.
These are exactly the kinds of human-centered tasks that designers work on every day, and over time they have evolved a body of skills to help them do it. It is time for this type of thinking—design thinking—to migrate outward and upward into the highest levels of leadership. Business leaders, hospital administrators, university professors, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) need to integrate the methods of the designer, just as designers need to broaden their reach from the crafting of objects to the shaping of services, experiences, and organizations. Design, in short, has become too important to be left to designers.
Read the rest of the article at: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_40/b4149054679916.htm
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Improving Innovation
Some simple and straight-forward methods to stimulate creative thought and innovation from the Soaring Eagle Enterprises' training program Innovation and Creativity:
Self Manage Your Thoughts
Remove Doubt
Initially Ignore Roadblocks and Risks
Modify Habits and Routines
Change Hours
Change Driving Route
Modify Schedules and Task Routine
Improve Working and Thinking Environment
Comfortable Seating and Working Environment
Use Natural Light
Avoid Harsh Light
Listen to Music
Avoid Mind Numbing Activities (Television and Internet)
Be Comfortable
Comfortable Clothes
Eat Well
Seek Inspiration
Read and Understand Other Creative People
See Where Others Saw Innovation Opportunities
Stimulate Your Physical Side
Exercise
Go Outside
Self Manage Your Thoughts
Remove Doubt
Initially Ignore Roadblocks and Risks
Modify Habits and Routines
Change Hours
Change Driving Route
Modify Schedules and Task Routine
Improve Working and Thinking Environment
Comfortable Seating and Working Environment
Use Natural Light
Avoid Harsh Light
Listen to Music
Avoid Mind Numbing Activities (Television and Internet)
Be Comfortable
Comfortable Clothes
Eat Well
Seek Inspiration
Read and Understand Other Creative People
See Where Others Saw Innovation Opportunities
Stimulate Your Physical Side
Exercise
Go Outside
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Innovation Versus Replication
In a recent program, we had a spirited discussion about innovation versus replication and best practices. The leading question was about if replicating the best practices of others was really innovation.
Many people believe that they are innovating or inventing when they are just copying or borrowing the work of others. Even when they add their own spin or own take on the matter, is it really innovation?
This is a tough concept. Drawing the line between what I built and what I built using something I saw and liked is very thin. Maybe the best definition is about the number of potential solutions to an issue. When no single solution is sought, innovation can be acheived. When we work towards a single, defined solution, that is more likely to result in replicated activities.
Tim
Many people believe that they are innovating or inventing when they are just copying or borrowing the work of others. Even when they add their own spin or own take on the matter, is it really innovation?
This is a tough concept. Drawing the line between what I built and what I built using something I saw and liked is very thin. Maybe the best definition is about the number of potential solutions to an issue. When no single solution is sought, innovation can be acheived. When we work towards a single, defined solution, that is more likely to result in replicated activities.
Tim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
