Reinvigorating Your Innovation Process

Many organizations are finding their innovation process and toolset have become stale. The process has become routine, with accountable individuals routinely conducting the expected activities and applying tools and techniques that have overtime become more habitual and less inspirational. All this leads to less than exciting ideas and smaller return on our innovation dollars invested.

The fact is, we must continue to refresh our innovation processes and toolsets. The very reason we instituted these in the first place was to create a higher level of interest and engagement from our teams by doing things differently. Once our innovation work becomes routine, it fails to serve our needs.

At Launch Institute we have worked with organizations on their innovation processes and toolsets for years, observing the ebb and flow of ideas and results. We have observed three key areas where, with attention and focus, we can ensure the ongoing vitality of our innovation work. These areas include leadership, techniques and timing.

In the area of leadership, the innovation process most often originates at a high level in the organization; if not at the CEO level somewhere very close to that level. Over time, accountability for the process is delegated down in the organization where it becomes less leveraged and increasingly insulated from the corporate vision and ambition. Take for instance the company where the innovation process was established by the CEO and Chief Technology Officer to (successfully) support the development of a well envisioned breakthrough technology and within three years accountability for the same innovation process resides four levels below “C Level”, insulated and working on more incremental projects.

When organizations first utilize innovation techniques such as market sensing, brainstorming and idea development, they are considered unique and engage team members at a very high level. If the techniques are not refreshed and new techniques introduced, they become routine and team members blindly conduct the activities without putting their best thoughts forward. Another issue here is the use of internal company consultants who tend to be comfortable with a set of techniques rather than combining this with outside consultants to add some “spice” to the work.

We have observed this in an organization that has utilized the same techniques (no changes) for two years. The time frame for the sessions have been cut in half; not because the sessions have become more efficient (quality of ideas is worse) but because the interaction/discussions of the participants have narrowed to quickly filling in templates rather than deeply exploring the opportunity area and challenging each others assumptions.

The timing of innovation activities can also be a reason innovation work becomes routine, while initial innovation events were scheduled based on specific needs and hot topics, When the innovation process becomes de rigueur, yearly schedules are set and topics pre-selected, giving participants the sense much has been predetermined and the need for new ideas minimal. There should be a healthy mix of prescheduled events with events that are more spontaneous and timely. Higher level events such as scenario planning and opportunity identification should be prescheduled while more focused events such as identifying new product or service ideas should be conducted when the time is right.

A few suggestions on reinvigorating your process would be:
1. Conduct an audit of your current state of innovation work. Interview participants and those accountable and compare their comments to best practices in innovation management.
2. Be intentional about introducing new tools and techniques to keep participants stimulated and challenged. Include outsiders to add spice to tools and techniques as well as content.
3. Mix your events with prescheduled as well as “just in time” events that focus on timely needs.
4. Reengage senior leadership in the work of innovation, not only in the legitimization of the process, by looking to them for challenges and vision and ensuring their involvement in decision making processes.

Again, we must be vigilant in maintaining the creative edge of our innovation process and techniques to ensure the proper return on our innovation investment.