What Keeps Organizations From Innovation ?

Roger Smith shared an interesting post a number of years ago in Fast Company: Can Innovation be Bought?. His was an interesting angle to consider that senior management's lack of familiarity or confidence with external innovations may be a barrier to their implementation. Though I see this sort of thing all of the time.

But is it possible that the managers citing this lack of confidence are putting a new face on the old "not invented here" mentality? Many companies using "closed" models for innovation have long used it as a defense to maintaining their internal staffs and large R&D budgets. P&G and others are showing the true power of open innovation models in the market today.

So what are the other potential barriers to innovation? Strategos, Gary Hamel's consulting firm, released a survey with senior executives in 2004 on the key barriers to effective innovation. Some interesting statistics in that study regarding the top factors cited as barriers...

• Short term focus/ focus on operations (63%)
• Lack of time, resources or staff (52%)
• Lack of systematic innovation process (33%)
• Leadership expects payoff sooner than is expected (31%)
• Management incentives not structured to reward innovation (31%)

Also interesting that only 15% cited "we don't know how to think out of the box" as a barrier to innovation. Now because managers think its so doesn't make it so. This survey reflects beliefs not necessarily realities - a case in point being the excuse of having inadequate resources to innovate. That is as much a reflection of folks not really doing what they should be doing.

Truth is there's a direct relationship between innovation and failure. The key killer of innovation is the lack of tolerance for failing - a necessity for innovation which directly reflects an organization's culture. Watch no risk no innovation.



Apple on Flash: Hey Steve, "C'mon Man"

Remember Hamlet and the quote, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"? While in this case it isn't a lady, the question still applies to Apple's CEO.

Steven P. Jobs, posted a 1,700-word letter on Apple’s Web site on Thursday, explaining the company’s decision not to allow the multimedia software Adobe Flash on Apple’s mobile devices, including the iPhone and iPad. The letter titled "Thoughts on Flash" ran the gamut from philosophical issues about the nature of closed platforms to complaints about performance and crashes.Why would Steve go to the trouble of sharing his "diatribe"? Think back to the Hamlet quote.

Let me say this: I enjoy Apple products. I own an iPhone, iPad and a MacBook. I have great respect for the innovations Apple has created. But give me a break Steve - why go to the trouble of writing a long letter of half truths? The reason you don't want Flash to run on your devices is as self serving to your business model as it is in the interest of "open source" philosophies (of all the reasons this was one you should not have mentioned Jobs). Do you think Apple is open source Steve ? "C'mon Man".

In response Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch posted an entry to Adobe's website titled "Moving Forward," in which he underscored the passion people feel about both Apple and Adobe technologies. "We feel confident that were Apple and Adobe to work together as we are with a number of other partners, we could provide a terrific experience with Flash on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch," Lynch wrote. 

He also sided with Adobe Flash evangelist Lee Brimelow, who had registered his disgust with Apple earlier in the month. Brimlow was upset about a developer agreement from Apple that makes it a violation of terms to use a non-sanctioned development language.

So why the protestation ? Here it is - Jobs is fighting for the survival of Apple and Charlie Stross got it right in his recent post on the "The Real Reason Why Steve Jobs Hates Flash". I strongly suggest you read his post. As Charlie explains, The PC World is coming to an end and Jobs knows this. The App Store and the iTunes Store have taught Steve Jobs that ownership of the sales channel is vital. Even if he's reduced to giving the machines away, as long as he can charge rent for access to data or apps he's got a business model. As hardware commoditizes and margins evaporate, the only way for Apple to remain viable is to own a completely closed system. Adobe threatens that system, hence Steve's protestation.

Next time you see Steve lecturing about open source philosophies, wether you love him or not, you gotta say, "Hey Steve, "C-mon Man".

Near Term - The Enemy of Progress

Reading Harvard Business Review's blog "Is the U.S. Killing Its Innovation Machine" I am reminded of the continual challenge of quality managers and entrepreneurs : the need to balance the near and long term. In fact most, if not all, of the significant challenges facing organizations today result from the failing of leadership to convey the value of long term goals to stakeholders for fear of the near. The "Tyranny of the Ugent" as Hummel wrote.

Its easy for people to "demand" results: particularly when there is so little understanding as to how those "results" might be achieved. Sadly many believe such demands are a sign of leadership: funny as that is. This is faulty thinking that is at the center of huge failings ( think GM and the recent Wall Street debacle as examples).

The principal role of intelligent leaders is to illuminate their organization's and industries about the need to choose between the status quo and a future of greater potential. As the article, "Pleasing Wall Street is a Poor Excuse for Bad Decisions" put it: good decisions rarely have much to do with the near term. No matter if you are a public or private enterprise, for profit or not for profit, the near term result should never be driven at the cost of the big picture. Dr. Ed Catmull, founder of Pixar, who wrote the article notes, among other things:

Managers who focus on maximizing short-term profits end up driving out things that generate long-term value — like R&D. They use all sorts of excuses when they make those decisions, including the need to please Wall Street and create shareholder value. But they're just excuses for poor thinking.

We need business leaders who have a respect for technical issues even if they don't have technical backgrounds. In a lot of U.S. industries, including cars and even computers, many managers don't think of technology as a core competency, and this attitude leads them to farm out technical issues. But we live in a technical society; technology is just fundamental to our way of life. Technical understanding should be a core competency of any company.

Watch Ed's description about how his firm, Pixar, was and is able to innovate. He is a smart man and I concur with his views. Near term results by the way are NOT at the center of their success but other more important things are. What do you think about that ?

How Laws Are Stiffling Creativity & Innovation

This morning I reaquainted myself with some of Lessig's past talks in reaction to a post I was reviewing Steve Lohr had tweeted on transparency. Recently I had an important business meeting with a group of executives to discuss a potential business acquisition, which required their input. The transaction involved a great number of copyright and other issues requiring (or not requiring to the point of this post) voluminous contracts. One of the 5 or so significant reasons the proposed transaction I was attempting was not achieved was, according to this group, my being too "legalistic".

I only use this example to make a point about where our laws have gone and the practical implication this has on commerce; particularly when it applies to innovation and progress. Attempts at progress are being impeded reguarly as the result of laws which have become disconnected from their original intent. Ironically, when I was told I was being too "legalistic" you should know, I am not a lawyer and the opposing group has multitudes of them employed, including one in the room at the time. I simply ask a lot of questions about lengthy agreements, the terms of which are prepared by others and the implications of which are often ignored until something goes awry. If you don't understand where I am coming from, watch this video of Lessig as he shows a good  example regarding a young woman's video on Youtube. So is it me being too legalistic or the world we live in ? Let me know. Perhaps upon viewing this you'll appreciate what I am refering to and next time reconsider where and when you play music and take pictures, these among many actions our law has deemed "illegal".

How Can You Connect With Customers Using Mobile Apps ?

How can you connect with your customers using mobile applications ? A recent WSJ article, "Services Tailor Apps for Small Businesses" written by Riva Richmond shared some important information about using new affordable tools to generate mobile applications. Mobility is surging and customers are increasingly accustomed to having information important to them delivered via their mobile telephones. Mobile Apps can be an effective way to connect with those customers. Here's what the WSJ article had to say:

In general, businesses that rely on repeat customers, like restaurants and retailers, or have intense interaction clients for some period of time, like real-estate brokers and car dealers, are the most likely to benefit from an app, said Greg Sterling, a senior analyst at Opus Research Inc.

"For ongoing, regular contact with customers that are on the go, it makes sense as a promotional or loyalty tool," Mr. Sterling says, since apps enable businesses to send out coupons and event details, including by text message, and customers can easily place orders or contact you for information.

But businesses that are looking primarily to attract new customers, such as doctors, lawyers and contractors, may find an app is a bit of a waste.

So how can you create mobile applications ? Technology is driving the cost of creating and deploying mobile applications down. Services including MobileAppLoader, SwebApps, Mobile Roadie (as shown above) and Kanchoo have emerged to help any sized company create apps. With easy-to-use online templates, much like those used to make low-cost Web sites, a basic iPhone app can take as little as 15 or 20 minutes to make and cost as little as $15 a month in hosting charges.