Innovation

WALK, DREAM -> CREATE

Published date: July 6, 2023 в 5:12 pm

Written by: Amnon Levav

Category: Innovation,Innovation Facilitation

My colleague Hila Pelles wrote an intriguing internal post for our SIT team, citing two thought-provoking articles.

The first is from INC.:

Research Suggests We’re All Getting Less Creative and Scientists Think They Know Why, by Jessica Stillman

The gist:

Scores on the Torrance Test, considered by many to be a reliable indicator of creativity, have been steadily declining since the 90’s.
The reason, scientists claim (the article claims), is that we are all spending too much time on digital screens instead of acting in the world or engaging in leisurely thoughts.
The solution: dedicate time to thinking, go on long walks, limit screen time and vary your routine.

The second article, published on LIT HUB (excerpted from: First Steps: How Upright Walking Made Us Human) expands on one of the first article’s recommendations:

On the Link Between Great Thinking and Obsessive Walking, by Jeremy DeSilva

I am doing a dis-service to this article by summarizing it, since it is more literary in spirit, but, using examples from Charles Darwin to Virginia Woolf, it convincingly makes the case for walking as a stimulus for creative thinking, supported by several experiments that found superior results and stronger brain connectivity in subjects who walked versus couch potatoes.

My pragmatic take on these articles, in two parts:

1) Caveat reader

a. In 25 years of experience working with diverse publics in dozens of countries I haven’t noticed any signs of decline in creativity. In fact, I believe there are many signs of a widespread increase in creativity and productive thinking – not always for the good of humankind, not even correlated with individuals’ happiness or wellbeing, but that is another issue. Instead, I believe that what the findings may be showing is the decreased relevance of the Torrance test itself, whose relevance I suspect was always less than its PR.

b. Although I resent the time my daughters spend on screens lately, I don’t think the blame for declining creativity, if real, should be placed on digital activities. Bertrand Russell famously wrote in praise of idleness in his homonymous book and article (“The idea that the poor should have leisure has always been shocking to the rich.”), showing that lack of idleness is not a new affliction and that it can equally affect both sides of the digital divide.

2) Practical facilitation tips:

a. In f2f sessions, move people around every now and again, sometimes ask them to stretch, and when possible – even to dance to music. Much more difficult in remote sessions, but very much worth the effort.

b. 2-3 times an hour, give participants the chance to chat with their neighbor(s) for 3-4 minutes on a task that doesn’t require too much concentration.

My 20-second summary, so you can go ramble: move around, take it easy, and you’ll be more creative (or, if not, I suspect, at least a bit happier).

INNOVATION as EVOLUTION and as CROSSING a SWAMP

Published date: June 8, 2023 в 8:39 am

Written by: Amnon Levav

Category: Innovation,Strategy

(Originally published on December 1st, 2021)

When talking to people about innovation and SIT, whether in casual conversation or as part of a teaching or facilitation scenario, many of us have found that the easiest way to convey what we are about, and the best way to make the (metaphorical…) penny drop, is often by using a metaphor.

The Evolutionary Metaphor

Ideas are like species. There are many of them out there. They struggle for attention and resources, and only the fittest survive. In “idea nature”, random variations of ideas emerge through accident and luck. Some of these variations – the 3M Post It, Penicillin – turn out to be useful and successful while others (the majority) disappear. What SIT does is to create the variations non-randomly. Thus, SIT is about systematic or directed creation of “idea mutations” or “idea variations”. Randomness is thus taken out of the idea evolution process. Some non-obvious advantages:

SIT variations are created using the 5 patterns. Thus, beyond speeding up the process by proactively creating variations, SIT leads to types of variations that tend to have a higher probability of survival.
Through the FFF structure, SIT not only speeds up generation of variations, but also accelerates selection, by passing each variant immediately through market and implementation filters.
As the SIT method evolved (!), additional tools and practices have been incorporated to make sure that those ideas that have been non-randomly selected, get to be packaged to support their survival.

The Firm/Marshy Ground Metaphor

Common wisdom is that when individuals deal with everyday notions and ordinary activities, they are on firm ground, stable and safe, while innovative ideas live in “marshy terrain” and, thus, in order to achieve innovation, one must be willing to leave firm ground and wade through marshes in the hope of reaching undiscovered territory. Due to the buzz around innovation, people push themselves into the marshes but, intuitively, they fear the thought of getting muddy, sinking or not being able to return to the firm ground from which they ventured out.

SIT’s novel claim is that this underlying assumption – that innovation lives in the marshland – is misleading and altogether false. Rather, the innovative idea resides on ground as firm and stable as that on which current thoughts and modes of being exist, and it is merely the path to this innovative idea that requires wading through the marsh.

SIT concedes that, indeed, to achieve innovation one must be willing to wade through these marshes. This wading process may be quite unpleasant and cannot, by any stretch, be considered as primarily entertaining (“we’ll have great fun”). There are, however, two consolations: first, a structured methodology goes a long way in guiding you safely through the marshy ground, and second, once the innovative idea is reached, one finds oneself, again, on firm and stable ground.

Innovation Stigma

Published date: May 11, 2023 в 5:37 pm

Written by: Drew Boyd

Category: Innovation,Organizational Innovation

There is an inherent bias against innovation despite the enormous value it holds for organizations. Corporate executives know that innovation is the only true long term growth engine for their firm. Yet innovation carries with it a certain stigma, a perception in the minds of executives, that it is “soft” and frivolous compared to other hard core business activities like productivity, quality, and demand generation. This stigma deters executives from taking risk and investing in serious innovation initiatives.

The innovation industry itself is partly to blame. Participants in the innovation space tend to perpetuate a mystique about innovation and creativity as though it is a deeply hidden secret that needs to be unleashed. Walk into many innovation sessions and what you see are cans of Silly String^TM, Slinky^(R)toys, Frisbees, and funny nose glasses. The notion here is that people need to be more playful to have that “eureka” moment and invent the next blockbuster idea. People are conditioned to believe innovation requires “skunk-works” in a specially-designed room to pursue “white space opportunities.” Innovation is voodoo.

In an effort to differentiate themselves, participants in the innovation space create novel names for their programs and services. Here is a very small sample: Innovations-Radar^(R), Innovation Cube^(R), Challenge Accelerator^TM, 360-IA^(R), Spinnovator^TM, Idea Bucket^TM, AlphaStorming^TM, Excursion Deck^TM, Mindscan^(R), IdeaSpring^(R), Super Digilab^(R), etc, etc. The list is overwhelming and it tends to confuse the market. More importantly, what is the efficacy of these tools? Do they work? The granddaddy of them all, Brainstorming, is certainly suspect given the many studies that suggest otherwise.

Is there an innovation bias? I am polling Fortune 100 executives to describe the characteristics of people who champion certain business causes. I ask them to describe the typical age, experience, credentials, aspirations, and personality of:

Productivity Champions
Process Excellence Champions
Innovation Champions
Leadership Champions
Brand Champions

The early feedback suggests innovation champions, compared to the others, are seen as more eager, altruistic “dreamers” who are out of touch with the business. One executive described innovation champions as necessary but had low expectations of actual results. Of more concern is the perception executives have about themselves in this role. My sense is business people shy away from championing innovation because they believe the stigma of failing at innovation is more career-damaging than failing at other ventures.

The innovation industry needs to play a role in improving the image of innovation. Fortunately, there are resources like Innovation Tools and CREAX that consolidate the innovation space and help companies make sense of the different offerings. More prominence needs to be given to the classic researchers in innovation and creativity like Ronald Finke, Thomas Ward, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and Jacob Goldenberg. We need to get back to the basics of what makes innovation work so we can skip the hype.

The innovation bias has to be overcome if companies want to make progress and grow. Leaders need to address this head on. How? Just as they learned to champion leadership by first becoming an authentic leader, they need to champion innovation by first becoming an authentic innovator.

What do SOS and Innovation have in common?

Published date: May 2, 2023 в 10:50 am

Written by: Allon Sasson

Category: Innovation,Methodology

For those of you familiar with SIT’s methodology, last week’s “survival” exercises are perfect examples of one of SIT’s principles: FFF, or Function Follows Form.

We took a deep look at the actions of Academy Award winner, Tom Hanks, playing the character of Chuck Noland in the film “Cast Away”. His limited available resources inspired his creativity, allowing him to survive on a desert island and finally to find his way back home. He did so by first looking at the form of the objects around him and then coming up with new ideas to best utilize them.

But survival on a desert island is not the only example of our principles – though it does make for an incredible story.

In SIT’s terminology, FFF is a leading principle and a structured framework for innovation, precisely because it forces one to examine possibilities that they would not seriously consider within a standard rational process. By applying the non-standard way of thinking, one improves the chances of coming up with innovative ideas that competitors may have missed.

Backwards is the right way for SOS

Trying to think of new applications for physical objects is not the only application of FFF. The principle also helps explain some well-known expressions.

First, let’s go back to our island.

Last week’s article may have prompted you to watch the movie. If so, you probably remember that, when trying to contact a distant ship, Noland signals both by shouting and with the help of a flashlight three famous letters – a distress signal: SOS.

The famous distress signal, SOS, is itself an excellent example of the Function Follows Form principle.

Contrary to popular belief, the origin of the SOS code is not the acronym for “Save Our Souls” or “Save Our Ship”. The sequence of letters was originally created without any literal meaning; It simply represented the easiest to remember sequence of Morse letters: three dots / three dashes / three dots (…—…).

Germany was the first country to adopt this sequence in 1905. In fact, it was preceded by attempts to use other codes such as SSS DDD, and even CQD. Lucky for us, CQD didn’t catch.

Only a few years later in popular usage, SOS became associated with the words that help us remember the acronym. Can you think of another phrase to attach to the letters SOS?

S.O.S created with FFF mindset

Source

This action, expanding an existing word into the words of a phrase, is called a BACKRONYM.

Have you ever heard of this term? The act itself is a bit more common than you might think. Care for additional examples? Here are some:

If we’re already into movies, the global crime organization “SPECTRE” from the James Bond film series has become the acronym for Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion.

The PATRIOT Act is a landmark Act of the United States congress, signed into law by President George W. Bush. It was enacted following the September 11 attacks, with an intended goal of tightening US national security, particularly as it related to foreign terrorism. No wonder, then, that the Act lent itself to the backronym Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.

Even the APGAR score, which is used by doctors to quickly evaluate the health of all newborns, is a backronym. It was named after Virginia Apgar, the anesthesiologist who invented it in 1952. Until today the APGAR score represents the mandatory set of categories needed to assess infant status shortly after birth all around the world. Only after it was adopted, the acronyms were invented to help medical teams remember all the tests included in it: Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, Respiration.

In fact, APGAR’s surname is such a strong “brand” that acronyms have been created in many other languages to represent tests included in the index, including Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, and Czech.

It’s time to go back to the basics: Looking for an object (Form) to fulfill a defined Function is fine. But discovering latent needs and benefits, that originate out of an existing Form tends very often to lead to innovation. So, don’t wait for your next flight over the Pacific Ocean. Give the Function Follows Form principle a try right now. You may make waves.

Can you think of some FFF applications from your immediate business and needs? Share with us.

Innovating with nothing but water around you

Published date: April 28, 2023 в 2:48 pm

Written by: Allon Sasson

Category: Innovation,Innovation Facilitation

I love movies and I love innovation. But even I was shocked when I learned that someone who shares my feelings was willing to pay USD 85,000 for a unique volleyball that appeared on the big screen.

A few weeks ago, Wilson, an off-white leather ball which is best known for co-starring alongside Tom Hanks in “Cast Away” was sold for that sum.

In the film, FedEx trouble shooter Chuck Noland, played by Hanks, is forced by extreme conditions to survive on a deserted island for 4 years, relying only on the limited resources found around him.

Wilson, in the movie context, is not just a ball. Chuck needs to find a solution to his solitude, sense of aloneness. Almost accidently, he “creates” a companion out of a simple blood-stained volleyball, by adding a face to it. This seemingly casual action changed the ball’s essence.

Wilson the volleyball from “Cast Away”

Source:

Why is this scene relevant for us? And what can we learn from it? I will use this Hollywood story to explain two principles of innovation that you can implement in your business, even if you are not completely surrounded by water.

How do we usually innovate?

All around us we can spot and specify needs and problems. We can usually identify and articulate our pains: What do we lack? What action do we want to perform, or do we wish to be performed? Then, we tend to look for a tool, a product or a person that best suits our needs.

What if there is not even one object around that supports these needs? In such cases we may try to build or invent one.

We usually move from a perceived function to the object that can perform it. We practice this standard way of thinking not only in our private lives, but also as a part of organizational and business routines. We define “A job to be done” and look for the right tool to do the job!

The term “Form Follows Function”, which encapsulates this way of thinking, was coined by the architect Louis Sullivan at the end of the 19th century. Sullivan was known as the “Father of Modernism”, influencing generations of architects and designers. He referred to the fact that a building or an object should primarily relate to its intended function or purpose, even at the expense of its aesthetics…

A deserted island is actually a Closed World

But survivors on lost islands do not experience regular conditions. You can ask Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, the most famous fictional castaway who spent 28 years on a remote tropical island. Your resources are scarce, and you must make the best of what can be found in your immediate surroundings, your Closed World. This is the first principle of innovation to be learned from this story.

In the 2000 drama film Cast Away, Chuck Noland is on his way to Malaysia when his cargo plane gets caught in a violent storm and crashes into the Pacific Ocean. Noland is the only survivor of the crash, and he washes up on an uninhabited island.

In his new home Noland finds his standard way of thinking useless. He carefully examines the objects around him – the content of some FedEx packages washed up on the shore – only to find out that their original function is no longer needed. After all, what good can skating shoes bring when you’re the only resident of your wild sandy hot kingdom?

Think differently, embrace your constraints

If you find yourself on such a deserted island, the first things you will probably look for are food, water, and shelter. Chuck Noland did just that, utilizing everything he could lay his hands on.

He began improvising. Not only did he find new functions for the objects he found on the island, but these new functions seem much more innovative than what he originally imagined.

For us it comes as no surprise since we believe in SIT that Constraints Foster Creativity. Nothing like a remote island to illustrate constraints. Noland learned this second principle of innovation quickly.

Got some dry branches? Great! Rubbing them can help start a fire. That’s easy.

How about the skating shoes blades? Looks like the perfect knife.

Some video cassettes that seemed of no value were the source of a strong rope, weaved from the tape inside them.

The plastic walls of portable toilets? They were turned into a sail and a shield for the raft Noland built.

And Wilson!

At first glance, the volleyball seemed redundant and was thrown aside. Only later a latent need was discovered. Noland, desperate to talk to someone, personified the volleyball, making him his closest friend. He drew a face on the bloodstained ball, enabling it to become much more than a sport appliance for years to come.

This innovative way of thinking might sound strange or even childish, but that is just the point. Most people use the standard way of innovating that I described before; Nevertheless, I would like to suggest a different approach: start with the form of the object, then look for new functionalities it may support.

This phenomenon was discovered by a group of psychologists led by Ronald Finke, and it spurred a new thinking approach.

In SIT terms, this is called Function Follows Form or FFF for short. This counterintuitive yet powerful process allows us to discover new benefits that we might miss by following our usual path of thinking.

We like improvising, creating new ideas out of imagined situations or objects, so why wait until we find ourselves on an island?

Come back next week to see how you can recognize outcomes of the FFF framework in surprising places.

The Not-So-Fuzzy Front End

Published date: April 20, 2023 в 11:24 am

Written by: Drew Boyd

Category: Innovation,Strategy,Sustainable Innovation

A best practice at Fortune 100 companies is to see the front end of the pipeline not as fuzzy, but as crystal clear. A systematic approach to innovation using an effective process can take away the mystery of the front end and create a sustainable growth engine.

What is the “fuzzy front end” and why has this notion become so popular? Calling the front end “fuzzy” perpetuates the myths of innovation. “Fuzziness” is the term coined to suggest that innovation has lots of risk, is not systematic, and is more of a “eureka” moment. One can schedule work, but you cannot schedule invention.

This is simply not true. You can schedule innovation. A company like GE, for example, that is seeking 8% growth on a base of $207billion in sales, needs $17 billion in new revenue a year from innovation to achieve that. GE will not tolerate fuzziness at its front end of innovation.

For some, fuzziness is more about how to select projects from among the ideas generated at the front end. There are many tools available to help managers select the most appropriate projects. The best of those use some form of weighted linear model.

My advice: Create an innovation schedule. Hold people accountable for generating new business opportunities. Sharpen the focus, and reward teams that bring forward an exciting portfolio of current and future growth opportunities. Accepting fuzziness in the front end is accepting slow growth.

Tempting Innovation

Published date: April 13, 2023 в 9:21 am

Written by: Drew Boyd

Category: Innovation,Strategy

Jeffrey Phillips makes a nice distinction between the various ways to adopt ideas of others outside your organization. In his post, The sincerest form of flattery:

If you are copying ideas in your industry, you’re a follower
If you adopt ideas from other industries and apply them in new ways in your industry, you’re an innovator
If you package your capabilities and dramatically change another market, your a disrupter

What about adoption of ideas of others inside your organization? Innovators face a particularly challenging issue getting colleagues to accept their ideas. Tanya Menon from the Ohio State University describes the paradox of an external idea being viewed as “tempting” while the exact same idea, coming from an internal source, is considered “tainted.”

In a business era that celebrates anything creative, novel, or that demonstrates leadership, “borrowing” or “copying” knowledge from internal colleagues is often not a career-enhancing strategy. Employees may rightly fear that acknowledging the superiority of an internal rival’s ideas would display deference and undermine their own status.

By contrast, the act of incorporating ideas from outside firms is not seen as merely copying, but rather as vigilance, benchmarking, and stealing the thunder of a competitor. An external threat inflames fears about group survival, but does not elicit direct and personal threats to one’s competence or organizational status. As a result, learning from an outside competitor can be much less psychologically painful than learning from a colleague who is a direct rival for promotions and other rewards.

Companies such as Procter & Gamble have perfected getting ideas from outside the organization. Their Connect + Develop program is considered a best practice in external collaboration. What companies struggle with is how to overcome the internal acceptance of peer ideas. One way to approach it is with Team Innovation.

The Story of Dogs and Pigeons

Published date: March 23, 2023 в 11:57 am

Written by: Erez Tsalik

Category: Innovation

It seems that everybody is preoccupied, to a certain extent, with the newly available AI open platforms. This, made me think of two very different animals: Dogs and pigeons.

Suffa, Michal, Quinta, and Dula were the dogs that accompanied my life. They were all rescued dogs, and each was very different in personality and relationships with us, the humans around them.

It amazes me that we can bond with our pets so well, characterize them and form an understanding of their ‘personality’. From an evolution point of view, I find it interesting to see the transition of their relationships with mankind.

Dogs have been around humans since prehistoric times and were one of the earliest animals to be domesticated. It is believed that early humans began to breed and tame wild dogs as early as 15,000 years ago, making them among the first domesticated animals. These early dogs were probably used for hunting, guarding and to help with various tasks such as herding animals. Over the centuries, dogs have been bred for different traits and characteristics, leading to the wide variety of breeds we know today. In modern times, the need use of dogs for hunting, guarding, herding and similar tasks has declined. Intuitively, you would expect to see less and less dogs around… However, it seems like dogs ‘re-positioned’ themselves as the most beloved companion animal, and continue to bring joy and comfort to humans around the world. In their new lives as pets, most dogs live better, longer and happier. They are mainly kept as pets and are even used in various forms of therapy. With more and more families joining the economic middle class, the population of dogs as pets is growing too.

From wild wolves to domesticated pets, the bond between humans and dogs has grown strong over time and will probably continue to do so for many years to come.

Pigeons have a long and fascinating history with humans. Wild rock doves, the ancestors of all domesticated pigeons, were the first bird species to be domesticated by humans. By the 1800s, pigeons were being used by humans for mail delivery in various countries. This was made possible due to their homing instincts and ability to fly long distances, which made them ideal for such a role. As technology evolved and more efficient methods of communication were invented, the need for pigeons as mail carriers diminished.

Over time, some of these domesticated birds returned to a wild state, beginning a new chapter in the history of the pigeon, and trying, not always successfully, to adapt and prosper. Many cities have seen a decline in wild pigeon populations due to the development of urban areas and the introduction of new predators. In cities that still have large population of pigeon, they are perceived as a nuisance, and are often referred to as rats-with-wings.

As our work and career landscapes continue to evolve, there are trades and occupations that have been forced to pivot or re-invent themselves in order to stay relevant. For example, taxi drivers have had to become ride-share operators, travel agents have had to become internet-based booking websites, retail clerks have had to become e-commerce delivery specialists, tour guides have had to become virtual tour operators, and assembly line workers have had to become automation engineers. Each of these professions has seen a significant shift in their roles and the progress of their jobs due to the changing technological landscape. Despite these changes, each of the examples still demonstrate how the workforce must stay flexible and adaptive in order to move forward with their careers.

There is a lot that can be, and should be done by us, to ensure that we will design our future work changes to be more like dogs and less like pigeons.

This article was co-authored with https://writesonic.com/

Innovation Under the Threat of a Recession?

Published date: March 9, 2023 в 4:11 pm

Written by: Yoni Stern

Category: Innovation,Organizational Innovation,Strategy

Cutting budgets of new projects, whether they are under the bucket of “innovation” or not is commonplace in times of economic uncertainty. This phenomenon is quite logical, especially for those classified as “innovation”. Innovation’s ultimate goal, after all, is to spur growth. In a period when growth is pretty much out of the question, investment in innovation seems capricious. Companies need to become more insular, stop the bleeding, cut the “luxuries” they have become accustomed to in times of plenty, and weather the storm. Not to mention the shareholders breathing down the Board’s neck to show some sort of profit margin.

The problem, however, is that these companies are overlooking two essential aspects of innovation. Firstly, while the output of innovation should always be value-add (usually equivalent to “growth”), innovation should never be applied to issues that are not strategic to the company at that time. This is one of the ways that many companies inadvertently marginalize innovation: they imply that while the current projects circulating in the company are there to keep margins steady, these extra projects are for growth. “Innovation projects” are then perceived as nice-to-have additions to one’s everyday work (unless you happen to be the unfortunate one who received the extra work brought on by these projects. Then they are not-so-nice-to-have). Thereby, management separates innovation from the core activities of the company and only innovates when the company has excess resources to invest. Or – even worse – when they panic due to a need to react to a bold competitor move or other market threat.

But this is not where innovation efforts should be placed. Innovation should be applied to tough projects and processes that are already occurring in the organization. It should be used to improve them – to make them more efficient, more effective, or to leverage them for growth. Innovation should not be invasive, it should be a tool for getting the most out of what is already happening or what you already have. It has become somewhat of a slogan for us in recent years: “Don’t do innovation; innovate in what you do”.

I doubt that “thinking and acting differently to achieve your goals” becomes irrelevant in times of a recession. Perhaps the opposite is true?

Interestingly, for those bold enough to resource traditionally-defined innovation efforts, the research shows that this is the time for even more substantial ROI.

Professor Jacob Goldenberg of Columbia University Graduate School of Business pointed out to me that research shows that times of recession are when true change happens in the marketplace. When the market is strong, the large companies and small companies typically both grow by gaining more customers – but at a rate proportional to their current market share. When the market is small is when there is an opportunity to convert just a small group of customers from the competitor’s offering, thereby having a greater effect on market share and the balance of power post-recession. Those smaller companies who had wisely increased their expenditures during a downturn, taking an aggressive approach, are those who were able to come out of the recession market leaders. This implies that market leaders must take a similar approach simply to ward off their competition and retain their position in the future.

So, is a recession the right time to invest in innovation? Common wisdom says no. Then again, innovation isn’t about doing what’s common.

Innovation Follows Strategy

Published date: March 2, 2023 в 12:42 pm

Written by: Drew Boyd

Category: Innovation,Organizational Innovation,Strategy

Innovation that is done in the context of business strategy tends to be more focused, efficient, and business-model relevant. Innovation should not be viewed as a way to take the organization off its strategic track and in new directions. Rather, innovation should be applied in a way that makes the current strategic track more successful and profitable…true growth.

Yet the tendency is to view this approach as incrementalism and not disruptive enough in the Christensen sense. Some would say that starting with your current situation is not bold and is risk adverse. “We’re not thinking outside the box” is the usual incantation at this point. Instead, there is a preference to chasing “white space” and “open source” innovation as a source of growth. Some executives prefer the lure of white space and opportunity spotting, and they readily acknowledge that it is “low yield by design.” The Scarcity Principle tends to make these opportunities seem more valuable than they really are. White space chasers position themselves as fighting the heroic fight. Resources come pouring in.

The best Fortune 100 companies pursue high yield, organic innovation efforts… not “low-yield-by-design” efforts. High yield innovation comes from tying innovation directly to the strategic marketing context of the firm. Ideas generated this way help the organization stretch its model in a way that is achievable and internally-sellable.

How do you tie innovation to strategy? Professor Christie Nordhielm from Georgetown University has developed what I consider the best single contribution to marketing thought since the 4P’s. Her Big Picture framework of the marketing management process provides the context for innovating across the entire business model. Applying systematic innovation tools to each aspect of her Big Picture model can yield amazing insights at both the strategic and tactical levels of the business. It is the intersection of these two ideas…Big Picture Strategy and Systematic Inventive Thinking…that will yield consistent, profitable results. Innovation follows strategy…not the other way around.

Innovation

Get our innovation model that has worked for 1000+ companies.