Debra Kaye’s New Book, Red Thread Thinking March 12, 2013Posted by keithsawyer in Enhancing creativity.
Tags: american express, Apple, brand strategy, colgate, creativity, innovation, marketing
add a comment
I really enjoyed Debra Kaye’s new book about entrepreneurship and innovation, Red Thread Thinking. Kaye is what I would call a marketing expert, but nowadays the trendier more correct term for marketing is “brand strategy”. She’s an expert on consumer product trends, and she’s consulted for Apple, Colgate, McDonalds, American Express, you name it–she is a tapped in thought leader.
I was intrigued to find a marketing expert (sorry, branding expert) writing a book about innovation, but after reading Kaye’s book it makes perfect sense. For Kaye, successful branding and marketing depends on identifying the hidden links between observations, experiences, facts, and feelings–and when we do that, we uncover fresh and surprising new insights. She’s right: the psychological research likewise shows that the most original and surprising ideas come from making hidden and distant connections. The first epigraph in her book is Steve Jobs saying “Creativity is connecting things” (I quote the same epigraph in my new book, Zig Zag!)
Kaye’s book tells you how to identify and understand these hidden “cultural codes and shifts in consumer perception” with the goal of “catapulting fresh products to iconic status.” Every Chief Marketing Officer wants that! So how do we do it? Kaye identifies five “red threads”
1. Become better at observing and interpreting what’s around us
2. Take a fresh look at the past
3. Know what makes your market tick
4. Learn how to create a new “language” to make your product stand out, and yet also be universally understood
5. Persevere, review, and refine your ideas but without compromising integrity or core beliefs
I liked this book, because I am a psychologist studying creativity, and this brings a completely different perspective to the same phenomenon: How to engage in behaviors and habits that lead to consistent and deliberate creativity.
China’s Innovation Riddle January 17, 2013Posted by keithsawyer in Education, Enhancing creativity.
Tags: beijing geely, china, education revolution, innovation, keith bradsher, li shufu, sanya university
1 comment so far
For years, China has been known for cheap labor and cheap manufacturing costs–that’s why the United States has outsourced so many jobs there. But China’s leaders are trying to change this and to become a more innovative economy. One of their core strategies is to increase the number of college graduates, as Keith Bradsher writes in today’s New York Times:
The aim is to change the current system, in which a tiny, highly educated elite oversees vast armies of semi-trained factory workers and rural laborers. China wants to move up the development curve by fostering a much more broadly educated public.
China is investing $250 billion each year in its universities. In the last ten years, the number of colleges in China has doubled, to 2,409. That’s 1,200 new universities in ten years, which is 120 new universities every year! And Keith Bradsher reports that these are not just phantom campuses–all of the classroom seats are filled. (Their biggest problem is finding qualified instructors.) By 2020, China’s goal is to have 195 million graduates each year (compared to the 120 million predicted in the U.S. that year).
But simply having more graduates won’t automatically result in more innovation:
Much depends on whether China’s authoritarian political system can create an educational system that encourages the world-class creativity and innovation that modern economies require….
The overarching question for China’s colleges is whether they can cultivate innovation on a wide scale–vying with America’s best and brightest in multi-media hardware and software applications, or outdesigning and outengineering Germans in making muscular cars and automated factory equipment.
Bradsher calls this “the innovation riddle” and compares China’s current situation to Japan just after World War II. In the 1950s and 1960s, Japan focused on university education much like China is doing now. In many ways, it was a huge success; Japan has a large middle class and one of the world’s largest economies. “But partly because of a culture where fitting in is often more prized than standing out, Japan hit an economic plateau.” Economists predict that China’s cost advantage in labor and cheap capital will disappear within 10 to 15 years. The riddle is: How can China transform itself into an innovation economy in just ten years?
Changing Places February 22, 2012Posted by keithsawyer in Innovative networks, Organizational innovation.
Tags: idea labs, innovation, knowledge management, reassignment, shadowing
When workers change departments for a short time–for example, shadowing another employee in a totally different part of the organization–it enhances the innovation potential of the entire organization. That’s because it results in more “weak links” throughout the organization’s social network. And from research, we know that creativity is more likely to result when information flows through these weak links–because it brings together diverse types of knowledge into surprising new combinations.
Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal* describes many companies that are successfully using this strategy:
To help workers sharpen their skills, stay motivated and identify new roles they might aim for in the future. Moreover, they help address a challenge that many companies are facing: how to better foster collaboration across different specialties and regions.
An Intel, employees can find temporary assignments by searching an internal database. This program just launched last March, and already 1,300 positions have been filled. Other companies finding success with this approach include Virgin America and PricewaterhouseCoopers.
My book Group Genius explains why this works: Because it helps resolve the challenge of “knowledge management.” How do you get information moving through the organization effectively, particularly across organizational boundaries? In addition to this “shadowing” technique, other knowledge management techniques help accomplish the same goal:
- “Idea labs” that bring cross-disciplinary teams together for one or two weeks
- Job descriptions that are broad, allowing each employee to cross multiple areas
- More frequent reassignment of staff
Research shows that all of these methods help to diffuse tacit knowledge–the kind of knowledge that’s hard to capture in computerized knowledge management systems, or in formal documents. And research shows that it’s this tacit knowledge that, more often than not, results in innovation.
*Lauren Weber and Leslie Kwoh, “Co-workers change places.” Wall Street Journal, Tuesday February 21, 2012, p. B8.
Google Buys Motorola: The Real Story August 22, 2011Posted by keithsawyer in Innovative networks.
Tags: Apple, innovation, intellectual property, microsoft, non-practicing entities, patent trolls
1 comment so far
This is big news: Google buys Motorola for $12.5 billion. Why buy a mobile phone company that’s struggling? What makes it worth so much money? Why does Google want to get into the hardware business, anyway?
Everyone in the industry understands the real reason: Google wants Motorola’s 17,000 patents. Google doesn’t intend to use the patents to invent new products; instead, they intend to use the patents as defensive tools in an obscure but critical corporate battlefield: intellectual property law. Last month, a coalition of companies including Apple and Microsoft paid $4.5 billion for the 6,000 patents of Nortel Networks. Google felt threatened; they needed a comparable pool of patents to seriously compete in the legal battles that are guaranteed to follow.
The reason why legal battles are guaranteed is that every company is vulnerable. There are so many patents on software ideas, and they’re so vaguely and broadly written, that every company might be said to be in violation of something. Google’s chief lawyer recently wrote “A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 patent claims” that are probably questionable, but still you have to defend against those claims in court. So what happens is that the big guys get their lawyers and accountants together in a room, and they trade patents like poker chips. Eventually, they come to an agreement not to sue one another, sometimes in exchange for a supplementary cash payment (if everyone agrees that one pool of patents is worth more than another).
Apple, Microsoft, and Google are mature companies and they’ll work out a deal. What everyone is more worried about are the so-called “patent trolls.” These are companies that don’t make anything; they only exist to sue other companies for violating their patents. (The nice term for them is “non-practicing entities.”) You can’t negotiate with them because they don’t need anything that you have; they only want a cash settlement.
Is this the way to foster maximum innovation? I’m not a lawyer, but I have to believe the answer is NO.
Also see my previous posts on patent law:
Apple Without Steve Jobs January 16, 2009Posted by keithsawyer in Organizational innovation.
Tags: Apple, creativity, design, hormone imbalance, innovation, joe nocera, steve jobs
I’ve lost track of how many cover stories I’ve read about Steve Jobs’ mysterious illness and his leave of absence from Apple. The announcement came on Wednesday, and right after the stock markets opened on Thursday morning Apple shares were down 5.7 percent. Shares recovered Thursday afternoon, but as I write this (Friday Jan. 16th) shares are back down to 80.73. New York Times reporter Joe Nocera, who has written more than once about his private off-the-record conversation with Jobs last summer, yesterday argued that the time is overdue for Apple and Jobs to tell all (read it here). Also yesterday, Brad Stones wrote in the New York Times “Can Apple Fill the Void?”
A solitary, genius individual, being immortalized as the creative genius responsible for a company’s success. Readers of this blog know what I think about stories like this: they’re always a myth. Innovation never comes from one person’s genius, and that’s not the way it happened at Apple, either.
It’s well established in the history of computer technology that Steve Jobs did not invent any of the technologies that make Apple products famous. The Apple II was not the first personal computer. The MacIntosh was not the first windows-and-mouse computer. The iPod was not the first portable MP3 player. And the iPhone was not the first Internet-enabled PDA (I love my iPhone but I had almost all of the same features three years earlier on my Palm Treo).
What distinguishes Apple products is not their technical innovations, but their superior design and their focus on the user experience. (I’d never want to give up my iPhone and go back to my old Treo!) People say Jobs was responsible for the emphasis on design at Apple. But Silicon Valley has been a hotbed of design thinking for decades. IDEO (and its current CEO Tim Brown) have been promoting “design thinking” for years. Stanford created an interdisciplinary design-oriented school known as the d-school. Is it an accident that a company like Apple, profiting on these same philosophies, happens to exist down the street from IDEO and Stanford? I don’t think so.
There are good reasons, however, for a company like Apple to propagate the myth of a legendary and gifted leader. The same thing happens in big science laboratories, where the assembled postdocs and graduate students have a vested interest in the reputation of the professor that they work for (you can read about this research in my 2006 book Explaining Creativity). Thomas Edison created the public image of a genius inventor largely for publicity and marketing purposes (historians have known for years that Edison didn’t invent, it was the inventors that he hired who did the inventing).
Steve Jobs is important for Apple in the same way that any gifted and talented CEO is important for their company. I believe his skills are a uniquely good match for what Apple has needed in recent years. But his importance is not due to his creativity, or to his unique gift for design. Apple’s creativity and its design sense are collective, organizational qualities and don’t reside in any one person. Any time you hear someone telling a story about an indispensable genius, you should get suspicious, and start looking for the real story.
Check out my other blog posts about Apple by searching for “Apple” at the upper right of this screen.
Apple iPhone August 23, 2008Posted by keithsawyer in Everyday life, Innovative networks.
Tags: Apple, innovation, iphone, iphone 3g, wintel
This week my Palm Treo 650 died and I replaced it with an Apple iPhone. These first few days, I have to say I’m very impressed. It far surpasses the Treo 650 (which cost $499 compared to the iPhone’s $199).
Also, by coincidence, this week I read a 2007 Fast Company article about Apple titled “If he’s so smart…Steve Jobs, Apple, and the limits of innovation”. The gist of the article is that Apple is perhaps a bit TOO focused on innovation. No doubt, their products lead the way (Mac, Newton, iPod, iPhone) but they have tended to lose dominance in a market, soon after other companies enter it. According to the article, the other companies are better at executing, better at quality control, better at reducing costs and making money.
Even if that’s true, I wouldn’t recommend to Apple to be less innovative, but rather to enhance their execution and management capabilities. But this raises a perennial management question: is innovation somehow incompatible with effective execution? For example, the quality control method, Six Sigma, is widely believed to be incompatible with innovation.
What concerns me about Apple is their strategy of controlling the complete product, the complete user experience. Historically, companies that tried to retain such tight control have always lost out in the marketplace, to other companies that are more open to partnerships and distributed innovation. In my book GROUP GENIUS, I describe how distributed “collaborative webs” are always more successful than single companies, and I give several examples of how the more closed, controlling company lost out–in spite of starting with a better technology or bigger market share. I didn’t use this example in the book, but that’s how Wintel beat Apple over the last 20 years.
The Application Store on my new iPhone 3G is very exciting, exactly what Apple needs to do: to open up the iPhone to a bigger collaborative web of innovators and developers. This will be the real story over the next year.
Ten Rules for Stifling Innovation July 1, 2008Posted by keithsawyer in Enhancing creativity.
Tags: change masters, innovation, rosabeth moss kanter
In the summer, professors get to read books they’re too busy to look at during the semester. I’m now reading a classic 1983 book on business innovation: The Change Masters, by Rosabeth Moss Kanter. It’s amazing that she gets everything right; her key points are in best-selling management books being published today. (See my June 9th posting “How long will it take?” for another story about how long we’ve known how innovation really works.)
Kanter analyzed six companies in depth; four of them were innovators and two were not. Somewhat tongue in cheek, Kanter proposed a list of ten “hidden messages” that the non-innovating companies sent their employees every day, writing “Imagine something like this hanging on an executive’s wall, right next to the corporate philosophy”:
1. Regard any new idea from below with suspicion-because
it’s new, and because it’s from below.
2. Insist that people who need your approval to act first go
through several other levels of management to get their signatures.
3. Ask departments or individuals to challenge and criticize
each other’s proposals. (That saves you the job of deciding;
you just pick the survivor.)
4. Express your criticisms freely, and withhold your praise.
(That keeps people on their toes.) Let them know they can
be fired at any time.
5. Treat identification of problems as signs of failure, to discourage
people from letting you know when something in
their area isn’t working.
6. Control everything carefully. Make sure people count anything
that can be counted, frequently.
7. Make decisions to reorganize or change policies in secret,
and spring them on people unexpectedly. (That also keeps
people on their toes.)
8. Make sure that requests for information are fully justified,
and make sure that it is not given out to managers freely.
(You don’t want data to fall into the wrong hands.)
9. Assign to lower-level managers, in the name of delegation
and participation, responsibility for figuring out how to cut
back, layoff, move people around, or otherwise implement
threatening decisions you have made. And get them to do it
10. And above all, never forget that you, the higher-ups, already
know everything important about this business.
The Innovation Exchange May 9, 2008Posted by keithsawyer in Enhancing creativity, Innovative networks, Regional innovation.
Tags: bill peck, carliss baldwin, christoph loch, conference, education, innovation, jeff degraff
Today’s conference at Washington University, called the Innovation Exchange, brought together top scholars and business leaders to think collaboratively about fostering innovation. It was hosted by our new Institute for Innovation and Growth. Keynote speakers included:
Bill Peck (former Dean of Washington U. Medical School and founder of Innovate St. Louis)
Carliss Baldwin (Professor at Harvard Business School and an expert in the relations between design and the economy)
Christoph Loch (Professor of Corporate Innovation at INSEAD, possibly the best business school in Europe)
Jeff DeGraff (Dean of Innovation at the Competing Values Company and a professor at University of Michigan)
Key insights that emerged included:
* The need to transform business school education to teach for innovation
* The desire for managers and innovation champions to have a forum where they can exchange problems, issues, and solutions
* The need for managers and staff to be educated about how innovative companies work, and how they can make their own organizations more innovative
Watch this blog in the coming year, as this new Institute for Innovation begins to take shape.
Innovation = Learning May 3, 2008Posted by keithsawyer in Innovative networks, New research.
Tags: adaptability, collaboration, dialogue, improvisation, innovation, organizational learning
Innovation is the flavor of the month; has been for more than a few months now. Organizational learning is another management trend–it refers to the ability of an organization to learn–to become more effective over time, to develop new knowledge and retain it to respond to future situations. What both innovation and learning have in common is adaptability and improvisationality.
In an article in the Fall 2007 issue of Sloan Management Review, Joaquín Alegre and Ricardo Chiva studied organizations high in organizational learning capability (OLC) and identified five core features of high OLC companies: experimentation, risk taking, interaction with the external environment, dialogue and participative decision making. This is fascinating because in my research, I’ve found that these five characteristics also hold true of organizations that use the power of collaboration to generate innovation.
(1) Experimentation, as defined by these authors, produces a flow of new ideas that challenge the established order. (2) Risk taking is just what it sounds like: the tolerance for ambiguity and errors. And as I’ve found, innovative organizations foster idea generation and tolerate failure.
(3) Interaction with the external environment is what I call “collaborating with customers” and is associated with innovative networks that I call collaborative webs in my book Group Genius. Deborah Ancona, in her 2007 book X-Teams, has likewise discovered that successful teams have an outward focus, and strong social network ties with people outside of their team.
(4) Dialogue and (5) participative decision making are what I call improvisation–a style of communication and an organizational culture that is egalitarian, open to flows across status levels. Improvisational organizations excel at a type of dialogue that opens up possibilities, a style of conversation in which new and unexpected ideas emerge.
I firmly believe that organizations high in learning ability are more likely to be innovative organizations, and I’m delighted to read of this fascinating study confirming the link.