Innovation

In the old days, some 20-30 years ago, a good leader was expected to be able, usually with some support, to see the big picture, imagine most of the possibilities and consider their respective pros and cons. Today, with a world that is more connected, more dynamic and more demanding, this is almost impossible. Therefore, in recent years there is an increased use of think tanks, sounding boards and co-management practices. It is becoming just too much for anyone to handle so much information, and to consider so many variables and possible consequences on their own.

There is, therefore, a strong need to learn and acquire methods and tools that help managers think together, in effective teams.

Historically, Think Tanks were established as institutes, corporations, or groups organized for interdisciplinary research with the objective of providing advice on a diverse range of policy issues and products through the use of specialized knowledge and the activation of networks. They were policy, ideology and strategy focused and used to perceive themselves as serving the public interest. Nowadays, Think Tanks are a synonym for an ad-hoc thinking team tasked with addressing open questions or strategies, and often act as advisory boards. In recent years we see many organizations create Think Tanks to help leadership see a bigger picture and consider additional potential directions and alternatives.

With the rise in popularity of thinking teams, one would have expected a growing number of tools and platforms to support these specific needs, and yet, although we see an increase in the number and variety of collaboration platforms and software, a search for tools, methods and approaches designed to assist with managing the actual thinking, reveals that there are surprisingly few offerings. Most models focus on ‘managing the room’, i.e. facilitating discussions and making sure they are tight and efficient. Several months of experimentation with some of these models taught us that, although they do make the work process easier to manage, there was no significant increase in the quality of the outcomes.

What was missing, apparently, were elements that can improve the thinking process, and through that, the depth, quality and uniqueness of the results.

Through this experimentation, during the past three years, we collected and evaluated dozens of tools and processes. The goal was to not only identify the best tools for the job, but also enable an accelerated but gentle learning curve. We aimed to create a kit that would be easy to use, containing tools and methods that complement each other.

At the end of 2019, in a discussion with one of our clients, an innovation manager for a division in a large international corporation, we conceived the idea of creating and trying out a new model, with the excellent men and women of her division as participants and experimenters. This client had worked with us closely in the prior 6~ years, on many projects and assignments around innovation and future-facing-dilemmas and served as my (best) partner-in-crime for configuring and experimenting this new model. In the three years preceding the project, we had worked together on similar topics, so we were also fortunate to be able to assess and compare results between the use of the new model and the outcomes from previous years.

We devised the framework for the program, and with the blessing of their management team, our program was launched. Note that this is unique: that a management team, with eyes on the future and open minds, embraced the program and gave us a green light to be the first (in the world, as far as we know!) to create, learn and apply a method for people to think with others effectively.

It was important for us that the model comply with the following criteria:

1. Self-activation – a kit that allows the team to manage itself, without need of external guidance
2. Very short learning curve – The learning process for using the kit must be short (2-3 hours max.) even for team members who do not have prior knowledge or previous experience.
3. Use a combination of tested tools and methodologies whose efficacy has been proven over the years and are in the public domain.
4. Efficiency – on the one hand, a variety of tools that meet most needs, and on the other hand, stay loyal to the less-is-more principle. It was easy and tempting to keep adding tools, but the decision was to stay lean and thin and adhere to the optimal and necessary minimum.
5. Cross-Media – the model could be used in both the physical and the virtual worlds.

After identifying the problems that a Think Tank might encounter, and determining the design principles, we began clarifying needs and characterizing possible solutions.

Our main design principles for the Think Tank kit, which we dubbed the “Operating System” should were that it should:

• Assist in the process of setting up the teams and in recruiting participants.
• Train participants to use tools and methods that will have a positive effect on both performance and ways of thinking.
• Address the diversity and variety of thinking tendencies and characteristics of team members.
• Provide tools for reflection and meta-cognition.
• Refer to the thought-process itself and methodologically create answers to open-ended questions.
• Address operational and logistical aspects of the work process, such as time management and knowledge sharing, as well as supply various formats for collecting and producing results and outcomes.
• Assist in collecting insights and improving the work with the model itself.

The results were impressive: 15(!) Think Tanks invested their time and brainpower to raise important questions regarding the foreseeable future, and, using thinking processes and design tools, presented their answers and ideas. Our starting point, in this specific case, was a bank of 80+ open questions; some of the questions were presented by the management team, and many others were submitted by employees, when asked to share questions that interest them as they contemplate the next 5-15 years. Once the Think Tanks started to work, they invested very little time to learn the tools and choose their path. Next, each team selected the questions from the ‘Question Bank’ that they wanted to work on.  To do that, we used a concept called ”Fertile Questions“ – a term coined by Prof. Yoram Harpaz, in his remarkable work on Communities of Thinking. Prof. Harpaz helped us formalize a simple process so that the teams were able to create meaningful questions and develop them into concepts and applications.

From an organizational perspective, using this “operating system” yielded the following:

• Functional teams of experts conducted focused and effective discussions
• New ideas, that venture beyond current thinking, were created
• Reports, testimonials, and white papers with practical implications were produced
• A culture of focused, effective, and efficient structured discussions was established

Yet another set of outcomes was on the individual level – from formal feedback, comments, and discussions, we learned that most participants had a strong and meaningful experience. More specifically, we collected these insights:

• The work process was easy to understand and follow;
• The ‘All Included’ kit saved time and efforts gathering tools and knowledge;
• A strong sense of ownership and team accountability was generated;
• Higher levels of depth and engagement in collecting, processing and converging data and concepts;
• Less friction and more flowing team dynamics;
• More alignment and pride in the teams’ results.

Personally, I am honored and grateful for the opportunity to share the Think Tanks’ story and modus operandi.

I think that this entitles us to announce that we have successfully developed the world’s first Think-Tanks Operating System.

Trigger warning: this post is a bit silly. It is silly for two reasons, that I will explain in the sentence after the next. But before that, I want to claim that although silly, it may be worth your while reading the post for one single reason: the simple tool that I describe here is very useful. But, granted, it is silly, because:

1. It uses as an example the tired cliché of New Year’s resolutions;
2. Like so many other pieces of good advice, it is simply a piece of your grandmother’s common sense, neatly packaged for contemporary use.

An interesting aspect of the tool I present here, which we call NFS, aka Near-Far-Sweet, is that it was derived by us from a concept presented in the context of education by the Russian sociologist Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934). The concept is called Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and it relates (apologies for the simplification) to the level of potential mental development of an individual (in the original context, a child).

Borrowing somewhat loosely from ZPD, observe the process of landing on the right New Year’s resolution when you wish, say, to get in better shape and hopefully shed some weight while you’re at it. These are two versions of an idea that you may come up with:

1. Take the stairs up to your 3rd floor office every day;
2. Go out for a 3-mile jog three times a week, and a 5-mile jog every weekend.

Common sense immediately indicates that option 1 is too weak, since climbing two flights of steps once a day or even twice doesn’t really keep you in shape (and even less so if you must first get into shape), while option 2 is very powerful and can probably lead to a dramatic change in your physical conditions. But, alas, the probability that you will stick to option 2 beyond the first two weeks of January are pretty slim, if you can even get yourself to launch the plan.

Ideas of the first type we call Near, the second, not surprisingly, Far, and those we are seeking, are labeled Sweet: What you need is a New Year’s resolution that is far enough from current practices to make a difference, but near enough that it can be viable to implement.

This is the Near-Far-Sweet (NFS) model we use to map out ideas. We often use this model when working with companies on creating their idea pipeline, following an ideation exercise. But, what should one do once ideas are mapped as N or F or S? How can this help in actually creating and implementing valuable ideas?

As part of his Zone of Proximal Development model, Vygotsky also introduced the concept of scaffolding. When we aim to lead a child to live up to their potential, how high should we set the bar? Too low, and we are not challenging them to go beyond the obvious. Too high, and they will probably end up frustrated and lose confidence. The Sweet Spot (mixing terminologies here) is a place in which – with the help of scaffolding – the child can reach the maximum level that their potential allows. In Vygotsky’s educational context, scaffolding very often takes the form of an older person, with the capabilities and motivations to accompany the child on her or his challenging journey to the higher reaches of their potential for development. In the context of product development, we propose that facilitation, with the proper structures, can do the scaffolding job.

Back to your New Year’s keep-in-shape resolution: perhaps not every single day but two or three times per week, and maybe 2 miles rather than 3 may be your Sweet Spot? Better figure it out before you make a commitment,  and even this Sweet resolution will be more attainable if you enlist a personal trainer, or convince a friend and neighbor to join you and thus become each other’s scaffolding.

The next step after mapping your ideas, whether for leisure or work, is to turn your attention to the Ns and the Fs. When working on a pipeline of existing products or services:

1. Near ideas are often created as variants on existing offerings. They thus tend to be easy to imagine, implement and also communicate to potential customers. But, given their similarity to known offerings, they seldom justify for the customer the cost of switching from their current practices. The objective, therefore, is to push the idea outwards, further away from the current version, and into the Sweet Spot. This can be done by applying tools that break mental fixedness about the current product.
2. Far ideas are typically exciting for their intended customers, but lacking in a clear path to implementation. Or sometimes, even though they can deliver a strong benefit for the customer, it is hard to communicate clearly what this promise is. In these cases, we utilize the Closed World principle, focusing on resources that are already at our disposal that can help concretize the idea, make it easier to implement or assist in communicating its value.

Much of this is pretty obvious – remember, I warned you – but surprisingly overlooked more often than not, resulting in the following common mistakes:

• Coming out to market with unexciting ideas, and then lamenting that “80% of product launches fail”. Of course they fail, if what you offer is so more-of-the-same.
• Giving up on ideas because they’re perceived as not exciting enough in focus groups or other VoC gathering techniques, before giving them a chance by pushing them further out towards Sweet.
• Giving up on exciting ideas because they either seem to be impossible to realize, or fall by the wayside in the attempt, rather than insisting on making them viable.
• Trying to launch Far ideas, technically feasible but still out of scope for the imagination of existing potential customers, rather than pulling them inwards to the Sweet Spot.
• Settling for Near ideas out of fear or laziness, and then brainstorming wildly to produce Far ideas, to prove that you’re “innovating”. And a corollary:
• Claiming that “we don’t have a problem with ideas, we’ve got plenty of good ideas”, without noticing that this “plenty” is made of Near and Far ideas, with none in the Sweet Spot.

So, if you insist on making New Year’s resolutions, against all odds😊, maybe try some version of applying the NFS principle on yourself, your kids, your pipeline?

Happy New Year!

Is technology stealing the limelight of innovation? Obviously, a lot of innovation is about technology, and technology can drive innovation in many ways. But beware the trap: sometimes organizations equate I = T and miss out on the huge opportunities of non-tech innovation.

Meet John, the owner of a global hotel chain in Singapore. John traveled a lot and used his travels to stay at competitors’ hotels to learn about their services, facilities, food and more.

On one of his trips, John came back to one of Bangkok’s famous hotels, about a year after his first visit. As he approached the front desk he was amazed as the receptionist smiled at him and said “Welcome back, sir. It’s so nice to see you again.”

Impressed as he was, John kept thinking about this welcome. “How did she know I was here before?” he wondered. “There is no way she remembered me, so what is it?” John came to the conclusion that the hotel must have some kind of facial recognition software that informed the receptionist whenever a past guest was returning to the hotel. Regardless of the technology behind it – John felt he definitely wanted to create the same experience for his returning guests.

Back at his office, John consulted with his management team and several specialists. After significant research and deliberation, they recommended installing cameras in each hotel and using a designated software that will alert the receptionist whenever a returning customer is checking in. The cost for the system was several millions of dollars!! Excited as he was about the heartwarming effect of the personal approach, John had to abandon the idea. It was just too much money. He put it behind him, but from time to time wondered if that hotel in Bangkok actually spent that much money on such a system.

The following year he revisited the same Bangkok hotel, and when he approached the receptionist he was again greeted warmly as a returning customer. “I must know,” he said to the receptionist, “I have indeed stayed in this beautiful hotel before, but you seem to know that without even entering my name into the computer… How do you do that?” The receptionist smiled at him warmly and explained:

“It’s actually very simple. We have agreements with all the taxi companies that service the airport. Whenever they drive a guest to our hotel they engage in conversation and ask, among other things, whether this is their first visit to the hotel. If it is the first visit the driver will put the suitcase on the guest’s left-hand side, and if it is a returning customer on the right. We pay the taxi companies $1 per customer, so everybody wins.”

We are willing to bet John never saw that one coming.

John is not the first to assume the tech route was taken. Technology is changing and shaping our lives at a radical speed. It seems that unless it negates the laws of physics, we can develop anything. And amazing things are being developed. But is it always necessary or is the tech hype pulling the wool over our eyes and making us overcomplicate things? As John’s story just proved, we need to remind ourselves that there is still room for other kinds of innovation. Here’s what you stand to gain:

1. Agile and cheaper ideas and solutions – New technology can be costly, with lengthy development time. Non-tech ideas can often be rolled out directly by its inventors (as opposed to external developers) using resources that are more readily available. As we saw with John, facial recognition software would have offered a similar service. But there is something about the “suitcase solution” that makes it a more feasible option (especially in the short term) and somewhat more elegant.
2. Getting the whole company involved – Viewing innovation as tech solutions only, limits who is able to take part. When you widen the definition, you encourage everyone in the organization to contribute. If your company is serious about creating a culture of innovation, promoting new ways for doing things: whether it’s marketing, sales, enhancing productivity, developing new services…celebrate those directions too. What people come up with will surprise you.
3. Breaking fixedness – Sometimes the process of innovation is overly technological. Instead of improving a given situation through examining both intuitive and non-intuitive directions, technology gets thrown into the mix as the obvious way to evolve (or to at least give the illusion that you are advancing and improving), regardless if it’s really needed or not. Take the Path of Most Resistance and see what results when you challenge your thinking to new, lucrative directions.

Technology might be the way of the future, but non-T innovation is still a worthy player in its own right. Let it have a loud voice in your organization. You never know what the future will be, and you want to be sure you have enough channels proposing it.