"The Creative Monopoly"

In David Brooks most recent NY Times Editorial, "The Creative Monopoly", he defines the constraints of "competitive" innovation and makes a case for Creative Monopolies. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/opinion/brooks-the-creative-monopoly.html

His assertion is that if we are only competing then our ideas will be incremental at best and if we look to create that that has not to date been created (monopolies in this sense) we can define new areas of value and achieve higher margins and more profitability.

I could not agree with Brooks more. In my work I make a distinction between Incremental Innovation (staying ahead of the competition), Differentiating Innovation (distinguishing yourself from the competition) and Game Changing Innovation (creating new platforms for competition).

But what we have come to know is that each form of innovation requires a different set of circumstances and conditions (level of corporate ambition/fear, leadership, tools/techniques, skills/capabilities and culture). A company that is focused on efficiency and is very inwardly oriented will have little chance to develop Creative Monopolies. Also, a company that is satisfied with marginal growth will kill Game Changing ideas.

This is why I feel it is very important for an organization to have defined its level of Innovation Ambition and made it clear to those involved in this work. A way to do this is to: 1. Define for your company the levels of innovation, 2. Set targets for each category (i.e., what percentage of your innovation budget will be spent in each level), 3. Give individuals the skills and tools they need to accomplish the goals in each level (i.e., the skills and tools needed for Incremental Innovation are not sufficient for Game Changing Innovation or Creative Monopoly development which will require much more customer centric and empathic research techniques.

I like the distinction Brooks makes; I just don't think most mature companies have the where with all to explore "Creative Monopolies".   

Steve's passing...

Wow. It has been an intense week. The great one is gone but leaves a legacy of incredible achievements.

I attended an impromtu memorial service in Palo Alto the other day and I must say in addition to the achievements specific to Apple, Jobs influenced an entire generation of innovators; from technology to consumer products to healthcare. There really was no industry his ideas did not touch. If we look at the total economic influence of Jobs it must multiply the capitalization of Apple geometrically.

A sign of a great innovator is the number of others he or she influences. Jobs to date is the greatest. He will be missed but his legacy will live on forever.

Brain Dominance and Innovation

Years ago I was immersed in thinking styles and brain dominance theory and practice, in particular the work of Ned Herman, Bernice McCarthy and Betty Edwards, and I have applied these concepts in my work for thirty years. The basic theory is that people have different thinking styles, often simplified to a “Right Brain-Left Brain” distinction, with Right Brainers being more intuitive in their thinking and Left Brainers being more logical in their thinking. There are many research reports and resources available on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function. In fact, various on-line tests exist to determine your preferred thinking style. You can do a quick analysis at http://www.launchinstitute.com/content/view/158/32/ .

The application of this information is critically important in the management of innovation. Have you ever worked on an innovation assignment with a team and experienced the gnawing feeling your ideas were just not good enough? Worse than that, you had to submit the ideas you had come up with knowing they could have been better. If so, it is quite possible you and your team were not operating with what I call Cognitive Agility. Where Launch Institute has used methods related to Cognitive Agility, we have seen much stronger individual and team results and more “Strategic” or game chaninging innovations. These innovations were inspired by uncommon connections and were enabled by high levels of mental flexibility, openness, and vigilance; the core elements of Cognitive Agility.

Three things are required in the application of methods to stimulate Cognitive Agility: 1) A basic understanding of the theories of brain dominance and thinking styles, 2) an appreciation of one’s own personal Cognitive Agility Profile, and 3) the dynamics of intersections (teams) of Cognitive Agility Profiles.

A case in point is a recent small team (18 people) innovation session Launch facilitated. The focus was on a new technology for the Department of Defense (DoD) and the participants were DARPA program planners, DoD engineers and others. Prior to the session each team member was given a set of readings (research reports and case studies) related to Cognitive Agility. They were also asked to use the Launch “Cognitive Agility Profiler” tool to document their personal degree of Cognitive Agility which they then submitted prior to the session.

Launch developed individual and team profiles. It was determined the individuals in the group were predominantly left-brained and highly analytical yet flexible in this thinking style as well as highly vigilant but they would not be open to other thinking styles or more intuitive approaches to finding solutions. Based on the goal of the session (a breakthrough in technology) it was determined that a better “mix” of styles would be necessary and session activities would need to be designed to ensure a higher level of Cognitive Agility was achieved. So we brought in a set of “Cognitive Ringers” to create a more balanced team profile.

The session resulted in four technologies that facilitated the desired breakthrough idea which is now being prototyped. Almost every participant asked for Launch to create profiles for their regular work groups to achieve better understanding of each other and, when this is applied, better work results.

Feel free to download the assessment above. Pass it around and enter the “Brain Dominance” discussion with your team. You will achieve new insights that will lead to bigger and better innovation results!

Manage Innovation From Your Value Fulcrum

A recent article appearing in Accenture’s “Outlook” series (Outlook How to Capture the Essence of Innovation:) suggests Innovation Management should be directed by the organization responsible for the learning and knowledge management function through an “innovation network”. This network is meant to connect the nodes of knowledge in the organization leading to collaborative insight and ideation.

At Launch, we are strong believers in collaborative innovation structures and the use of core institutional knowledge as a basis for development of insights and ideas, but we feel it is critical that ownership of the Innovation Process and organization be at the fulcrum of value creation in the company, the company’s chosen “Value Discipline”.

We use the model created a decade ago by Michael eacand Fred Wiersema in their book The Discipline of Market Leaders. In this work a model identifying three potential Value Disciplines (Operational Excellence, Product Leadership and Customer Intimacy) are described. eac and Wiersema’s key message is that a company chooses one “Value Discipline” as its key focus for differentiation while maintaining market competitiveness in the other two.

In our work we identify the chosen differentiating Value Discipline of our clients and then determine the optimum means of managing innovation including where in the organization accountability of innovation should reside; in an Operational Excellence company it should be managed in the area most responsible for efficient operations (manufacturing center, distribution center, etc.) and headed by the Chief Operating Officer, in a Product Leadership company it should be managed at the point of New Product/Service Development and should be lead by potentially the Chief Technology Officer or her equivalent, and in a Customer Intimate organization innovation management should reside where the focus is on the customer experience and their needs and should be lead by the Chief Marketing Officer or similar role.

It is critical that innovation be managed from the right place in the organization to ensure this work has credibility, timeliness and the proper knowledge and resources applied. If it not managed from the right place, political tug-of-wars occur, resources are ill-spent and differentiating ideas make it to the market too late if at all.