Breaking Innovation's Chicken and Egg Debate

Do I establish a proper innovation culture first, or do I build a process and install a platform that will enable an innovation culture? 



While at Spigit, I have met with over 40 different innovation leaders from various industries in the global 1000 over the past 2 years, and this question has been uttered in almost every single discussion. And guess what?  Many of these organizations have innovation programs that are still stuck in neutral.  They have let their fear of failure prevent them from taking action, and are either still struggling, have moved on to other roles in their firms, or given up all together because they feel that this conundrum is unsolvable.

That being said, there have been many more great successes to observe, and an interesting trend has emerged that is proving to be a blueprint for success when starting or revitalizing an innovation movement in today's corporations. 

So let's look at the root of the issue.  The chicken and egg argument is an either/or discussion.  One comes from the other in an everlasting loop, and they cannot exist in the same moment.  Our customers have found, however, that characteristics of successful and sustainable innovation programs blend technology, processes and human relations together.  Each part works symbiotically with the other resulting in high engagement, and creates a repeatable process that delivers aligned ideas that fail fast or turn into projects with strong returns on investment, ulitmately leading to breakthrough innovations!

So how can one get started and break free from these chains?



First and foremost, setting up an infrastructure first is not the answer.  It is a simple fact that if you collect ideas on a platform but don't have a mechansim to act on it or do not have a collaborative culture, you are just going through the motions, and will have an innovation program with low credibility and executive backing.  These programs usually exhibit the following characteristics:

• A place or methodology that collects ideas from anyone at any point in time
• Lots of ideas that are incremental or unfocused
• Strong grass roots backing with dispassionate leadership
• Success metrics that are not linked to financial goals
• Dwindling employee engagement, passion and disillusionment

Conversely, attempting to build the right culture first is also a loser. It usually starts with the C-Suite stating something like, "We need to be more innovative, so we can (insert here, grow revenues, reduce costs, know our customers better, beat our competitors), and we need to do it by....  Pretty strong stuff, right?  Sounds like a plan, right?  9 times out of 10, this initiative gets handed of to department heads that look at their resources and budgets and take the path of least resisitance.   They don't allocate the proper budget or staff to fix the problem, and the results often look like this:

• Email blast asking for ideas
• Narrow, departmental focus
• Ideas disappearing into a black hole
• No plan for execution
• Disillusioned staff
• Innovation as 'one trick pony'

After reviewing the best practices of our customers, Spigit has found that the most successful innovation programs exhibit the following characteristics:

People:

Running successful innovation programs requires an equal focus on innovation strategy, process and deployment.  Some customers have the people skills and staff available to handle all three, others have 1 or 2 skill sets, and still others have no staff, but the desire.  All can be successful if they budget for these resources and make them an intergral part of their program, but let me be clear, ALL 3 areas must be accounted for, or failure is on the horizon. Successful companies will either recruit new employees, have their innovation partners train exisiting ones or simply outsource the functions, so that they can concentrate on their core business.

Repeatable Processes:

Another sound business practice is to create repeatable processess that help to gather, manage and qualify ideas that are aligned with business goals.  This does not mean you have to throw away your "Always On" idea community.  What is does mean is that companies that are the most successful at creating sustainable innovation run timed, focused challenges that solve specific business issues.  This creates focus, increases engagement and credibility, and tangible measurable results.   Something that can be easily repeated and understood  by department leaders and provide a framework a company can believe in.

Adaptable Technology that is like a surgeon's suite of tools:



The least expensive part of running an innovation program is the technology used to motivate individuals to interact with ideas to make them better, however, it is also an incredibly important element.  It must have the flexibility, the diversity and the power to keep people engaged, provide analytics and reports, and help ideas grow and expand (or fail out).  There is a reason a surgeon has multiple tools for similar procedures. The same can be said for innovation platforms.

Our most successful do all three of these things at once, and get the budgets and buy-in from their leadership to be successful.  If you are having trouble getting the approvals to accomplish this, you need to question how committed you, or your company really is to innovation.

Is it better for retailers to be where the puck will be or where it is now?

The Great One, Wayne Gretzky, probably the most talented hockey player that ever lived once stated:

"A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be".

If you think about that, he is essentially attributing his success to his ability to predict the immediate future of the hockey puck. Gretzky had an uncanny ability to assimilate massive amounts of information about his opponents and team members, and then make decisions based on that data.  The end result...he scored more goals than any of his peers, and it is a record that may not ever be broken.

In today's changing landscape of consumer purchasing behavior, I think that retailers can learn a lot from Gretzky's advice (works in Chess too, if you are the cerebral type).

Let's face it, consumers not only have choices about who they buy from, but how they buy and where.  That is creating a dramatic shift in how retail marketers need to message and drive store/website traffic, and it also creates challenges for merchandisers and store operations leaders as well.

Case in point, my son wanted a Steelers jersey in time for the Super Bowl, and even though there is a Dick's and a Sports Authority located about 5miles from my house, I decided to buy it on line.  Why?  Because I wasn't certain I would be able to find a Troy Polamalu jersey in his size, in black in Tampa Bay Buccaneer territory.  I ordered it using my Motorola Droid, and my buying decision was based on using an online retailer that had my credit card info stored already.

Think about what just happened.  Because of convenience and access, my buying behavior was influenced by a number of related small events, that combined with a deadline date (ship and recieve before the Super Bowl), made my decision really simple.

So what does that mean?  If you assume that the consumer is the hockey puck, what is the best strategy for a retailer to score?  Should the retailer be where the consumer is, or where the consumer will be?



My simple answer is both.  A retailer needs to gather information about where their customers are going to shop and how.  What is important is they also need to gather that information in context.  For example, if you are looking for ideas about how consumers use facebook to shop, well why not ask them while they are in a facebook session? If someone is out and about and uses a smartphone heavily, well doesn't it make sense to gather idea via a mobile device such as an iPad or a Droid phone(OK, OK or a Blackberry)?  Gathering information and ideas from customers in this manner will provide retailers with credible, predictable behaviors because the info was gathered in context.  Guess what?  Credible information leads to better decisions, and can guide retail business unit leaders to make their decisions about where their customers will be, and provide their customers with appropriate resources to make their buying decisions simpler....and faster....and larger.

In closing, Gretzky was a great scorer of goals, because he could anticipate where the puck was going to be and when he arrived at the puck, he had the skills to execute.  He scored more, because he had more chances.  Retailers need to give themselves more chances at shots on goals.