A few months ago, we were invited to take part in a conference, near Washington DC, called Greener by Design.
Our theme there – we gave one plenary session and several of what we call “Innovation Flashes” in between the other sessions - was Sustainability & Innovation. When they hear the title, cynics often say “this year’s buzzword and last year’s.”, and I have to admit there is something in this remark. Still, for most companies, both them and their clients do want products to be sustainable, and competition does demand that offerings be more innovative. So in the end, not much choice these days but to aim for both S and I.
But why do we sense that a tension exists between innovation and sustainability?
Because the most intuitive way to innovate is by adding, by offering more: faster internet, additional features on your cell phone, an (even) larger SUV. Almost always, this entails more resources, higher emissions, a bigger battery, and consequently - less sustainability. Sustainability, therefore, is often seen as an additional hurdle that the would-be innovator must overcome. On the other hand, the easiest path to sustainability seems to lead to anti-innovation. Just eliminate the frills and extra features and immediately you become greener. Yet doesn’t this entail offering less to your customers, going back to the old version of your products? It seems therefore, that the traditional view of innovation is inherently anti-sustainability.
So can you give up innovation and focus on sustainability? Changing your product for the greener means rethinking the way your products are designed, manufactured, packaged and sold. But products tend to be designed as they are for good reasons. It is understandable therefore, that any proposed change will cause resistance. Creating a different product, then, demands overcoming or setting aside the assumptions that led to the current one. This requires a set of tools and abilities, that allow you to break your rigidity and do things differently; in other words – to innovate. Could there be an approach to innovation that is naturally conducive to sustainability? We obviously think there is, but here are some points to consider:
1. You need to “innovate inside the box” – start from what you already have, rather than what you would like to have.
2. Stay within the “Closed World” – counter to the prevalent view, effective ideas arise not by adding external elements, but rather when you can look at the existing ones from a different perspective.
3. Use “Task Unification” – identify an existing resource but then assign to it a novel task, not the one that the resource would normally fulfil.
These are, you will not be surprised to hear, three central rules of SIT (an approach, a principle, and a tool respectively, in our parlance). Truth is that we can’t claim to be pioneers in sustainability. We developed these and other principles out of purely innovation-led considerations. But we count ourselves very lucky that it turned out that our method is so perfectly adapted to creating sustainability, and that we have more and more opportunities to use it for this purpose.
Photo copyrights: ©iStockphoto.com/saturated
to sum up
SIT = Sustainability Innovation Theme
Hola Amnon,
Dilemas are a nice challenge to overcome. Aparently inversely proportional entities, could co-exist synergically, as Innovation and “being green”. New and not so new methodologies help us to overcome them: TRIZ (and its sister SIT) excel in overcoming trade-off and dilematic situations similar to the greener & innovation issue you’ve described.
My question is, when you are focused on achieving sustainability not in the environmentally responsible sense, but in the “corporate longevity” sense, how would SIT help organizations being longeve and innovative at the same time?
Saludos,
Fabian.
hola Fabian,
Some not too organized immediate thoughts:
1) i think one of the points of sustainability is that there isnt a difference between the two types of sustainability. the metaphor is a small boat floating on a big boat that is sinking.
2) i am not sure that with “longevity type” sustainability there is the same inherent conflict as with the green one. maybe yes- inertia in the same direction versus the need to change course, although, continuing with the ship metaphor, a big ship that wants to stay on course knows that it needs adjustments to go around rocks and icebergs, but will find it difficult to make dramatic changes to its direction.
3) when people ask me questions of the “how will SIT help organizations do X?” type, what comes to mind is usually that SIT helps people think and act differently, and i have yet to see the area or aspect of an organization’s life (or a person’s) that cannot benefit from that.
Amnon
hi Dov
cool Task Unification (or Attribute Dependency?).
sustainability innovation together/theory
(:
Amnon
Amnon,
The world’s oldest corporation (more than 11 centuries old), Stora from Sweeden (now Stora-Enso), has benefited, among other initiatives, from diversification, as it could be seen here:
http://81.209.16.116/History/Organisational_history/Stora_Kopparbergs_Bergslags/Stora_Kopparbergs_Bergslags
Now going out of the example and thinking generally: Could diversification be considered as an initiative, where many SIT projects could be implemented over time, enabling sustainability in the longevity sense?
Or could diversification be part of an even larger SIT initiative?
Saludos,
Fabian.
Whilst accepting that “innovation” & “sustainability” are overly-used and misunderstood buzzwords I have to admit not to seeing them in any way in conflict or pulling a business in opposite directions as you seem to imply. For me, the sustainability agenda is another ‘driver’ for innovation and joins the classics already established - Social, Technology and Economic. It is simply another factor in the innovation equation and yes, it may thus further complicate innovation decisions and priorities but it does not fundamentally change anything about the innovation process.
I think your assumption that innovation always requires ‘more’ and is therefore in conflict with sustainability a false one; the conflict is more between sustainability and traditional patterns of ‘consumption’ (consumerism and related business model where more and bigger is better) rather than innovation, which is only a means to an end, whatever end we desire and define.
If we add ‘Re-think’ to the beginning of the 3 R’s sustainability mantra (Reduce, Reuse & Recycle) then maybe we have a more positive context within which to innovate sustainably? Give that many costs for existing product’s are “external” to the price paid i.e. not factored into the cost of production and sale price, then going even further and starting with ‘Re-costing’ existing product’s may help to create the oft missing burning platform necessary to spur sustainable innovation.
Both innovation and sustainability suffer from relative ‘newness’ compared to other disciplines and activities and therefore lack clarity and I think this is the key challenge for many individuals and firm’s. I have always believed that “less is more” applies to innovation so I guess sustainability just confirms me in that belief!
Brendan at “How To Farm Lightning: sustainable innovation”
Dear Brendan,
Sorry to be so late to reply to your comment, which i read with much interest. I am traveling these past few weeks, which has made me fall back on mails and posts, not to mention embarassingly enlarging my carbon footprint. But that is another subject.
I agree with you 100% - Innovation and Sustainability do not have to conflict. On the contrary, and as you mention in your comment, Sustainability is a strong driver for Innovation. As I mention in my post, Innovation is nearly a logical prerequisite for Sustainability as well.
My claim is that innovation, AS IT IS OFTEN (MIS)CONSTRUED, is at odds with sustainability. Why so? Because the “Blue Sky”/Brainstorming versions of innovation, that are all too prevalent, tend to lead their users to ideas that are anti-sustainable. How? Because idea generators, when they are left to ideate without constraints, tend to gravitate to addition-ideas, meaning more features, additional modules, higher power etc.
“Constraints” is the key term here. If people see as their main principle in generating ideas (as in BS) the freedom from constraints (”anything goes”), then any constraints imposed on them are seen as anti-creativity and therefore anti-innovation.
Say a team is charged with inventing a new line of medical devices, and they are using traditional approaches to ideation, then their “enemies” are the FDA, the limitations of their current technologies, budget cuts, and they will be trying to generate ideas IN SPITE of these constraints. Now along comes Sustainability, and now they have yet another constraint to deal with.
Obviously, we believe that the Sustainability constraints are good news, rather than a hindrance. Why? First, because our approach to creativity and innovation embraces constraints, and actually depends on them. Second, because Sustainability gives this medical device company a whole new area to excel in, and to differentiate itself from competitors. And third, but not least, a great chance to do something for the benefit of everyone and their future.
You mention that the real conflict is between Sustainability and consumerism. I titally agree. In fact, we have started to work with a simple model that describes four types fo relationships between S and I as related to new product development. One of the quadrants, which we call high-innovation low-sustainability is exactly that - rampant consumerism (symbolized in our mdoel by the pig). On the other hand, the high-S high-I quadrant (the dolphin) represents the kind of innovation we (and i undertand that you as well) are striving for and appreciate.
thanks
Amnon