Посты с тэгом: systematic inventive thinking

Teaching Your Children to Innovate

Published date: December 21, 2008 в 10:24 pm

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,

Parents teach their children many things: morals, etiquette, religion, sports, cleanliness, walking, cooking, riding a bicycle, reading, writing, math, discipline, safety, driving a car…the list goes on and on.  What if you could give your child the  life-long ability to innovate?  What a gift indeed.  This issue surfaced after a string of emails with one of our blog readers who wants her child to learn innovation (thanks, Trish!).  Can children learn a corporate innovation method at such an early age?

I’ve taught children how to innovate, and it is one of the most rewarding feelings you can have.  I taught 6th, 7th, and 8th graders the method called Systematic Inventive Thinking.  I was surprised and a bit unnerved how well they did.  After teaching the five templates of innovation (over a five weekly sessions), each child completed a “final exam” by innovating a new-to-the-world product using one of the templates in just 30 minutes!  I was amazed.  The PowerPoint slides I used for this training are in the READING section of the blog if you wish to download them.

Here are some pointers for teaching your children to innovate:

1.  Equate innovation to other skills-based activities.  Innovating takes skill just like sports or dancing.  Don’t let your children think innovation is some special, innate talent that only certain people have.  This creates an artificial barrier, one that I see too often in the corporate environment, and it prevents people from trying to be innovative.  Innovating is a skill, and it can be learned by anyone, even those who are not creative in the traditional sense.

2.  De-emphasize patents.  For some reason, kids are fascinated with patents.  They tend to see patents as the ultimate reward of innovation.  Patents do not equate to successful innovation; rather, they equate to getting legal status regarding an invention.  If a child invents something that has already been invented, this is a success.  In fact, it is a huge success because it shows an ability to create novel ideas that have a track record of success.  Be sure to reward your child if they invent something that exists.  Send the message: if you can invent something that is already shown to be successful, you can definitely be the first to invent something new and useful.

3.  Apply innovation across a wide variety of situations.  It is not just for inventing new products.  Teach you children to apply innovation methods to things like writing a poem, doing school work, or getting dressed in the morning.  Have them invent a new way to clean their room or play with a toy.  Help them equate innovation with creating novelty in the everyday things.  Make innovation a routine way to tackle new situations.

4.  Distinguish between innovation skills and problem solving skills.  Both are useful, but are often confused as the same.  They are related, but different.  Help them see problem solving as what to use when the problem is very well defined and must be solved.  Help them see innovating as the set of tools to use when new approaches are needed for an existing task.  Example:  Innovate a new way to clean their room, but problem-solve when they want to avoid having to do it.

5.  Teach “ambidextrous” innovation.  Help them understand the two directions of innovation: Problem-to-Solution and Solution-to-Problem.  Example: if the kitchen toaster burns the bread every morning, and they see a novel way to fix it, that is Problem-to-Solution.  Other the other hand, if they imagine the toaster is like a TV that is “on demand,” then make the connection that this would help mom get toast ready precisely when everything else is ready, that is Solution-to-Problem innovation.

6.  Set an example.  Parents struggle teaching children anything unless the parents demonstrate those skills themselves.  Whether it is table manners, proper grammar, or how to treat other people, parents must “walk the talk.”  Innovation is no different.  Let children see how you and others, especially other children, use innovation methods to do cool things, fun things, important things.

(Pictured are two future innovators, Emerson and Margo, from Cincinnati, Ohio)

The LAB: Innovating the iPhone with Attribute Dependency (September 2008)

Published date: September 28, 2008 в 12:28 pm

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,

Lab_2

Here are ten innovations for the iPhone that I would love to see.  I created these using the Attribute Dependency tool.  It is the most powerful of the five tools of Systematic Inventive Thinking, but also the most difficult to learn.

To use Attribute Dependency, we start by making two lists.  The first is a list of internal attributes of the iPhone.  The second is a list of external attributes – those factors that are not under the control of the manufacturer (Apple, in this case), but that vary in the context of how the product or service is used.  Then we create a matrix with the internal and external attributes on one axis, and the internal attributes only on the other axis.  This matrix forces the combinations of internal-to-internal and internal-to-external attributes that we will use to innovate.

That’s the hard part.  Now the fun begins.  We take these virtual combinations and envision them in two ways.  If no dependency exists between the attributes, we create one.  If a dependency exists, we break it.  Using Function Follows Form, we envision what the benefit or potential value might be from the new (or broken) dependency between the two attributes.

The matrix that you develop using this tool can become quite large.  To make it easier, you can download the one I used for this exercise and follow along with the innovations below.  I put the number corresponding to each idea in the appropriate cell of the matrix.  Here are the ideas along with the attribute dependencies that led to the idea:

1.  CARRIER-CONTEXT:  Allow users to switch wireless carriers depending on whether phone calls are business or personal.  Pre-select which phone numbers go through which carrier in the iPhone’s Contacts.  This makes it easier for people to keep track of phone expenses and allows enterprises to control and monitor costs more accurately.  Same could be done for email addresses.

2.  FUNCTION-CONTEXT:  iPhone apps re-arrange automatically on the desktop depending on the context of use (with friends, family, co-workers, or myself).  For example, with co-workers, the apps become more business related (conferencing, calculator, tools, timer, meeting planning, notes, etc).  Geo-sensing tells the phone who you are with, then changes appropriately.

3.  VOLUME-LOCATION:  The iPhone goes to silent mode automatically depending on where it is (in conference rooms, churches, the boss’s office, etc), or switches to a louder mode in places like the car, grocery store, or other noisy environments.

4.  JOB-FUNCTION:  The iPhone is customized with apps depending on job, profession, or job type.  A health care worker, for example, might have an iPhone that is optimized for a hospital setting (updated information about patient location, records, medications, potential cost savings, infection risks, etc).Iphone

5.  LOCATION-LINKAGES:  Wi-fi and other linkages (carrier, email client, SMS) change depending on location to optimize for the situation.  For example, wi-fi would turn off for certain networks that are password protected so the phone stays connected to the cellular network.  Saves time from having to switch back and forth manually.

6.  BATTERY LIFE-TIME:  The user can switch to a “battery conservation mode” that will power down features not needed (color screen goes to black and white, wi-fi off, vibration off).  Or, the iPhone does it automatically depending on time of day such as at nighttime.  For travelers who like to keep the phone on all night in their hotel room, this would save time and battery life.

7.  CAPACITY-RANGE:  Enable iPhone to “borrow” the optical disk space of a nearby Mac of PC much like the MacBook Air does.

8.  PHOTO QUALITY-BROWSER TYPE:  This is an odd one, but that is the beauty of this tool – it makes you put together combinations of attributes you would not think of.  In this case, the iPhone would allow you to vary the photo quality to load into different browser types or features.

9.  MUSIC SOURCE-LOCATION:  The iPhone would recognize when it is in an airplane, restaurant, store, concert, museum, or other venue, and it would pick up the music or broadcast that is streaming just within that venue.  It might include advertising or other useful information relevant to the venue (example: restaurant menu specials, airport flight delays, museum closing time, etc).

10.  FUNCTION-LOCATION:  The iPhone “shopping buddy” would tell you what items on your shopping list to get in a certain order to save the most time.  It would suggest items on sale as substitutes for what’s on your list.  It would tell you what checkout line is fastest, and it would know how much you are about to spend.  Perhaps it could link right to PayPal and complete the checkout process for you.

To learn this tool, consider taking a course such as the one being offered next month in Chicago.  I’ll be there!

The LAB: Multiplication (August 2008)

Published date: August 31, 2008 в 10:05 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,

Lab_2

The Multiplication tool is one of the five powerful thinking tools taught to me by the folks at Systematic Inventive Thinking. I like this tool because it is simple and yields great results.  Even children can learn it.

Multiplication works by taking a component of the product, service, strategy, etc, and then making one or several copies of it.  But the copy must be changed in some way from the original component.  The original component is still intact, unchanged.  Now using Function Follows Form, we work backwards to take this hypothetical solution and find a problem that it solves.

One of our blog readers, Jim Doherty of the Grabbit Tool Company, agreed to let me use their main product, the EZ Grabbit Tarp Holder, for this month’s LAB.  I bought a set at Ace Hardware last night, and used the Multiplication tool just now to create some new product ideas.  Here is a demonstration of the EZ Grabbit:


We start Multiplication by making a list of the components:

  1. Sleeve
  2. Dogbone
  3. Chord
  4. Grip
  5. Lock

Make a copy or several copies of each component, one at a time, and change something about it.  What would be the benefit or potential use of the product with this new, changed component?  Here are some ideas:

  1. Two sleeves, but the second sleeve is attached, back-to-back, to the original sleeve.  This would allow a second tarp to be attached to another one (with its own dogbone).  There could be three or perhaps even four sleeves, arranged in quadrant style (with the openings facing out), so multiple tarps could be attached.  The copied sleeve could be longer than the original, allowing different tarp configurations.
  2. Multiple dogbones, but each is optimized for different types of material (tarp, plastic, terry cloth, cotton, denim, etc) to prevent damage, improve grip, etc.
  3. Multiple chords, each coming out of the same dogbone with its own hole, to allow different attachment points.
  4. Two grips, the second one attaches to the first one to allow it to be hung from a hook.
  5. Two locking mechanisms, the second one used to attach to the fabric temporarily so it does not get lost or slide around during placement.

Once we have raw ideas like these, it’s a good idea to get early customer feedback and perhaps build some working prototypes to let customers envision using the new product.  The ideas above are incremental innovations to the product’s original category, so it can be valuable to get customer feedback about potential uses of the new embodiments outside the category to find breakthrough ideas as well.

The LAB: Task Unification on a Guitar (July 2008)

Published date: July 26, 2008 в 11:52 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,

Lab_2
The suggestion from one of our readers (thanks, Erez!) is to use Task Unification on a guitar.  His  comment suggests that players have trouble keeping their guitars in tune when playing in a band.  They need to reduce the time it takes to re-tune between songs.  I liked this assignment because I play guitar, and I have a small collection of electric guitars, an acoustic guitar, and a banjo.  This will be the first time I have applied a systematic innovation process to invent new guitar concepts.  Let’s see what happens.
At least two guitar makers have addressed this with electric guitars.  Gibson has their Robot Guitar that automatically tunes itself to one of several tunings including “standard” (EADGBE) tuning.  Pull a knob, dial the tuning you want, and…presto…the guitar tunes itself.  Transperformance has their version, The Performer, which does the same but includes a clever LED on top of the guitar so you can actually track what is happening to each string.  Both have onboard computers and some sophisticated string management systems (pulleys and servos) to do this.   Here is the Robot Guitar in action:

While I consider this innovative, I see these as the traditional model of innovation:  IDENTIFY PROBLEM – FIND SOLUTION.  These guitars are cool, but they are heavily engineered and technology driven (I don’t plan to own one).  The elegance of the systematic approach is that it works in reverse: IDENTIFY SOLUTION – FIND PROBLEM THAT IS SOLVES.  This approach, in my experience, leads to simpler and thus more innovative ideas.  What would be amazing is to find solutions on the acoustic guitar without all the electronics and mechanisms inherent in electric guitars.  That is what I focused on for The LAB this month.
Task Unification is the template that assigns an additional job to an existing resource or component (either internal or external).  We start by listing the components of the product.  Here is the list I made this morning:

  1. pickguard
  2. sound hole
  3. fretboard
  4. frets
  5. bridge
  6. bridge pins
  7. dots
  8. nut
  9. strings
  10. tuners
  11. tuning pegs
  12. truss rod
  13. finish
  14. bracing

There are two tasks I want to assign, one-by-one, to each of these components:  knowing when a string is out of tune, and helping put the string back in tune…quickly.  So we phrase it this way:  “The pickguard has the additional job of knowing when the strings are out of tune.”  Then I try to imagine what the pickguard has to do to make that happen.  A more general way to innovate is to give the pickguard an additional job from a list of tasks, one-by-one, then imagining what problems that solves or what benefits that produces (using Function Follows Form).  This approach will yield a wide range of potential innovations beyond just tuning the guitar.
I came up with these ideas:
SJ-ph-LG For knowing when the guitar is out of tune:  the tuning pegs indicate when they have slipped (rotated due to the force of plucking the strings) or when the string has slipped.  It does this with some sort of pop-up indicator, perhaps gradually to the degree of slippage.  A quick scan of the tops of the tuning pegs could tell the player the status of each string independently and which ones are in most need of re-tuning.
SJ-bridge-LG For re-tuning the guitar quickly:  the bridge pins can be pushed in, perhaps in gradual notches, to place slightly more tension on a string to bring it in tune.  For playing in a band, this would be good enough until the player could use the tuners to do their regular job.  Another advantage is the bridge pins are nearest the right (strumming) hand so its convenient and unobtrusive to quickly push a bridge pin while playing.
Thank you for joining The LAB this month.  Your ideas and comments are welcomed.

M&A Innovation

Published date: June 20, 2008 в 6:14 pm

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,

Relying on mergers and acquisitions for growth sends a signal that you don’t know how to innovate or how to manage it.  M&A has other problems, too.  Companies tend to overpay which actually destroys shareholder value.  At best, firms end up paying full value, neither better or worse off financially.  The firm grows in size, not value, and pays in the form of distraction.
What if you could use the tools and processes of innovation in mergers and acquisitions?  How could it help?  Would you select acquisition targets better?  Could it help understand the valuation better so you get a better deal?  Might it help you implement better?  I believe innovation techniques could be applied to all three. Here is one example: targeting – deciding who to buy.
Imagine you are the CEO of a bank, perhaps headquartered in Europe.  You and the other board members have decided its time to deliver more value to the shareholders by growing the business. You decide to
acquire another bank with all the spare cash you have accumulated (rather than just give it to its rightful owners.) The question is: which bank?  Should we buy one in Europe to expand our share while eliminating a competitor?   Should we expand to the U.S. market and buy one there?  Should we buy a struggling bank, get it cheap, and restore it to profitability?
No, no, no. Too simple and obvious.  Nothing innovative here at all.  Let’s instead apply the Subtraction Tool from Systematic Inventive Thinking and see how we can re-frame the question.  Start by listing the components of your bank.

  1. Employees
  2. Customers
  3. Assets
  4. Property plant and equipment
  5. Brand
  6. Systems
  7. Management

Now, one at a time, let’s remove a component, then ask ourselves which bank we should acquire.  Imagine you had no customers. You still have all the other components, just no customers.  What bank could you
acquire that had the ideal customer base for YOUR bank given what it’s all about?  Would you want customers who were more diverse, higher income, more profitable, lower cost to serve, more loyal, etc?  In other words, acquire a bank that delivers the perfect complement of customers.  Now remove employees.  You have all the other components, just no staff.  Now what bank would you buy?  Which has the ideal employee base for who you are?  Would you go after employees who are smarter, less costly, more diverse, younger, older, etc?
The same process, done for each component in succession, gives you a whole new innovative perspective on who to acquire.  It helps you understand why you are buying, what you are getting, and how you
expect to create new value and competitiveness.  It helps you understand The Bet – what the deal is really all about.
M&A is an expensive way to grow.  By adding the gift of innovation to the process, shareholders stand a better chance of seeing more value.

Innovation through Co-opetition

Published date: April 6, 2008 в 8:35 pm

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,

How do you innovate a business model?   You can create new products and services within the current business model to drive growth.  Or you can create a new business model and open up a whole new world of possibilities for the firm.  Either innovate within the current game, or change the game.  But how?
Several books address this, from Clayton Christensen’s “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” to a more recent offering, “Innovation to the Core: A Blueprint for Transforming How Your Company Innovates”  by Peter Skarczynski and Rowan Gibson.  When Professor Christensen presented his disruptive innovation model to our company several years ago, I remarked that what is needed is NOT so much a disruptive product, but rather a disruptive business model.  His book is a good historical account of a few industries that suggest disrupting (innovating) the business model is what really counts.  While these books and others do a good job of exposing the issue, neither give a prescriptive “how to.”  The most recent book suggests a holistic approach.  “To build a breakthrough business model that rivals cannot easily emulate, you’ll need to integrate a whole series of complementary, value creating components so the effect is cumulative,” the authors note.  Fine, but there are no step-by-step processes how to do it once you have unpacked the original business model.
My answer comes from combining two existing concepts (a Medici Effect as described by Frans Johansson).  Those two existing concepts are Systematic Inventive Thinking (S.I.T.) and Co-opetiton.  S.I.T. is a proven process for generating innovation on demand.  Co-opetition is an idea described by Barry Nalebuff and Adam Brandenburger in their book called, “Co-opetition.”  It means cooperative competition, and it is a way to see your industry not as a zero sum game, but rather as a group of participants that can behave in a certain way that benefits all.  They coopetate rather than compete (legally, of course).  I met with Professor Nalebuff and had him “school” me on the concept.
The trick is to apply S.I.T. templates to the Value Net model of co-opetition.  Here’s how.  List the activities of each Value Net participant (Company, Supplier, Customer, Complementors, Competitor).  Rotate each specific company in the Value Net model so that each takes a new role (competitors become suppliers, suppliers become complementors, etc).  Use each S.I.T. template on the new list of activities, starting with Task Unification.  Using Function Follows Form, envision how the new role and role player can benefit YOUR company.  Here is an example, using Nintendo as the company of focus:

Now imagine each player rotates clockwise one position.  Applying S.I.T. Task Unification, we ask what roles could Atari perform as a customer to Nintendo that would be beneficial to both.  (For example, could Atari and Nintendo cross license software code to each other, perhaps making some features of their games work on the other’s game box?)  Apply all five templates systematically to each role and each player within the context of their new role.  This will generate many new, innovative business model components and themes.
Disruption doesn’t have to be uncooperative.

People Innovation

Published date: March 24, 2008 в 3:49 pm

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,

Human Resource departments often find themselves tasked with creating a more innovative climate for their firms.  That can make sense given that innovation is a people activity.  It’s a skill, not a gift, and it can be taught and learned like any other business skill.  And it is usually team-based.
My advice to HR leaders?  Experience innovation close to home first.  Use innovation tools on actual people or HR systems before venturing out to the broader organization.  This has the effect of making true believers out of the HR team, it gives them a handy reference point for other departments to benchmark, and it yields creative new approaches to traditional HR processes.  How?
Using the five templates of Systematic Inventive Thinking, here are examples of pre-inventive forms within the HR realm.  The key is to envision the pre-inventive form, then find a useful role or benefit for it.

  • SUBTRACTION: Your training programs have no faculty.  Why?  What would be beneficial about it?
  • TASK UNIFICATION:  Offer letters to new hires have an important additional role during the first year of employment?  What is that role, and how could it help the organization?
  • MULTIPLICATION:  Employees receive two paychecks each payday, but they are different in some way.  How are they different?  What would be the benefit?
  • ATTRIBUTE DEPENDENCY:  Year-end bonuses do NOT change based on performance or other factors.  Why?  How could it motivate employees?
  • DIVISION:  New employees are hired first, THEN recruited into the organization?  How would this work and why would it be useful?

The real trick in using this method correctly is to envision a pre-inventive form that doesn’t seem to make sense at first.  Then, using a cross-functional team, you outline specific benefits that could be derived for the HR department, the company at large, or some other entity.  Ask yourself: is it feasible?  How could the idea be modified to make it even more beneficial or feasible?
Another approach is to use innovation templates on specific employees – create ideas that innovate their life or career.  Here are five more examples of pre-inventive forms at the individual level:

  • SUBTRACTION: The employee no longer has a budget but still has to accomplish their goals.  Why?  What would be beneficial about it?
  • TASK UNIFICATION:  The employee’s office space now performs an additional role.  What is that role, and how could it help the organization?
  • MULTIPLICATION:  The employee has two bosses, but they are different in some way.  How are they different?  What would be the benefit?
  • ATTRIBUTE DEPENDENCY:  The employee works fewer hours the more she produces?  How would this work?  What would be the benefit?
  • DIVISION:  The employee no longer works from 8 to 5, but has to work at different times.  Why?   How could this be useful?

Re-invent others by re-inventing yourself first.

Divide and Conquer

Published date: February 24, 2008 в 10:46 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,,,,,

“Divide and Conquer” is:  a. classic military strategy, b. a computer algorithm design paradigm, c. a collaborative problem solving approach, d. an innovation tool, or e. ALL THE ABOVE
The answer, of course, is all the above.  Division is one of the five templates of innovation in the Systematic Inventive Thinking method.  The others are Subtraction, Task Unification, Multiplication, and Attribute Dependency.  Templates were developed by recognizing the same consistent pattern over many products so that the pattern could be applied to create innovative new products.  The method works by taking a product, concept, situation, service, process, or other seed construct, and breaking it into its basic component parts or attributes. The templates manipulate the components, one at a time, to create new-to-the-world constructs for which the innovator finds a valuable use. The notion of taking the solution and finding a problem that it can solve is called “function follows form” and is at the heart of the systematic inventive thinking process.  It is innovation by working backwards.
The Division Template works by taking a product or a component of it and dividing it physically, functionally, or what is called preserving where each part preserves the characteristics of the whole.  Rearrange the parts, then work backwards to find a use or benefit for this new form.
Here is an example from my workshop last week at Duke’s Fuqua School of Business.  The product is dryer sheets (gauze-like tissues about the size of a Kleenex, put into clothes dryers to eliminate static cling, soften clothes and add artificial fragrance.)  Now divide these into much smaller parts, perhaps after the whole sheet is thrown into the dryer.  Imagine these smaller parts get all over the clothes and cling to them.  Why would this be useful?  What could be the benefit?  Here’s an idea.  Perhaps the smaller pieces stay on the clothes to continue softening, brightening, or adding a design element, waterproofing, smell-proofing, allergy free, anti-itch, etc.  Perhaps the clothes are pre-treated with something that interacts with the small dryer pieces to extend the performance of the clothes, reducing cleaning, wear and tear, or wrinkles.  Perhaps the small bits are transparent (thanks, Yoni!) so they are invisible on the clothing.  This simple Division takes a seemingly dull product and re-frames how we think of it to discover new innovative uses and benefits.
Division is also a collaboration approach.  One of the Duke MBA’s, Tom Powell, emailed me about crowdspirit.com, kluster.com, and ideabahn.com.  These new sites form communities that take an idea and iteratively improve it with suggestions from members.  These sites are also examples of Division (preserving) – taking the larger problem and dividing it among many people.  Idea collaboration is an old idea, but what could be a more innovative approach is to divide a problem using the other two methods: physically or functionally…focus members on the problem in a different way.  As these beta sites evolve, we will watch to see how innovative they can become at dividing and conquering.

In Search of Bad Ideas

Published date: January 27, 2008 в 8:24 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,,

Mitch Ditkoff notes a common misperception regarding bad ideas:

“One of the inevitable things you will hear at a brainstorming session is something like “there are no bad ideas.” Well, guess what? There are plenty of bad ideas….The key for aspiring innovators? To find the value in what seems to be a “bad idea” and then use that extracted value as a catalyst for further exploration.”

I agree.  Good ideas usually start as bad ideas, an insight I learned originally from the folks at S.I.T.. But the question is: how do you extract the value from a bad idea to transform it?  I offer three approaches.
First, look carefully at the bad idea and try to characterize the single benefit that the idea delivers to the customer regardless of how whacky that benefit is delivered.  It is the benefit that you want to hold onto, not the whacky deliver system.  Ideate new ways to deliver that benefit.
Second, what criteria are being used to judge the idea as bad?  Try using the Reverse Assumption technique on those criteria.  Turn them around, challenge them, re-frame them.  Make the seemingly bad idea look good in a different context.
Third, look for what is old about the new idea.  Thomas B. Ward, is his chapter, “What’s Old about New Ideas,” says:

“Structured imagination refers to the fact that when people use their imagination to develop new ideas, those ideas are heavily structured in predictable ways by the properties of existing categories and concepts.”

In other words, we do not ideate in a vaccuum, but rather in the context of what we already know.  My advice is to take the bad idea and look for the original concept that it was built upon.  Can that be taken in new directions using a structured process?
For corporate innovators, I see this as a best practice.  I often ask people what they do with their bad ideas.  If I see a curious look on their face, it usually means they are not taking advantage of this phenomena.
Bad ideas are better than no ideas.

Lessons from Improv

Published date: January 6, 2008 в 7:07 pm

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,,

I’ve come full circle on the notion of improvisation as a source of innovation.  I just finished a three day improv training program at The Second City to try to find direct application to corporate growth.  I found it.
My pursuit of a method of innovation started with John Kao’s book, “Jamming,” which compared innovation to the process of musical improvisation.  Jamming is a group activity where one musician lays down the foundational tempo and key for the other musicians who, one at a time, add their own interpretation of it.  At the time, I thought this was innovation nirvana.  But I moved away from it.  Improv and “jamming” in the Kao mindset seemed too much like brainstorming which is usually LESS productive than simply thinking of ideas by yourself.  It seemed too unstructured.  Bottom line: it didn’t work.
Now I’ve learned a more systematic approach to improv from a place that has launched the careers of more comedians than any other.  What I learned can be boiled down to: 1.  The Commitment Principle, 2. The “Yes, and…” Principle, and  3. The Relationship Principle.  When applied systematically, these yield very funny comedy sketches from anyone.  My belief is they can be used the same way in corporate innovation.
Commitment Principle means commit to both the role you are playing and the process.  The “Yes, and…” Principle means always take what line or idea your partner has given you and add value to it.  Match the energy and direction of your partner, but then add significant context or information to keep the dynamic going.  The Relationship Principle says to establish the connection and accountability to your partner above all else.  Without this, improvisation is impossible.
Comedic improvisation is a disciplined, structured, team activity.  My goal is NOT to become a comedian.  Rather, my goal now will be to merge these lessons from improv with Systematic Inventive Thinking to produce even better innovation, on demand.

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

    No thanks, not now.