Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Myth #17: Innovating is about product differentiation


Myth:  Innovating is about product differentiation. 


Reality:  Innovating is about a lot more than a differentiated and superior performing product, including new ways of messaging, merchandizing, introducing, and monetizing. 



This is one of 20 myths and realities about innovation revealed in our 2013 qualitative survey report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying.  

If you would like to receive a  copy of this report, please contact lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com.

We look forward to hearing from you soon. 
© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.


Thursday, December 26, 2013

Myth #16: Innovating is not the accountability of operating business leadership. 



Myth:  Innovating is not the accountability of operating business leadership. 

Reality:  Without the proactive sponsorship of business leaders (P&L owners) for innovating, resulting innovations will end up disconnected, under-nourished and misdirected. 



This is one of 20 myths and realities about innovation revealed in our 2013 qualitative survey report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying.  

If you would like to receive a  copy of this report, please contact lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com.

We look forward to hearing from you soon. 
© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Myth #15: Innovating is extra-curricular to established organizations

Myth: Innovating is extra-curricular to established organizations. 


Reality: Without innovating, organizations become irrelevant. 




This is one of 20 myths and realities about innovation revealed in our 2013 qualitative survey report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying.  

If you would like to receive a  copy of this report, please contact lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com.

We look forward to hearing from you soon. 
© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Myth #14: Innovating is always something that shifts the paradigm and shakes the earth


Myth #14:  Innovating is always something that shifts the paradigm and shakes the earth. 

Reality:  Innovating creates new value regardless of the degree of impact. 

This is one of 20 myths and realities about innovation revealed in our qualitative survey report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying.  
If you would like to receive a  copy of this report, please contact lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com.

We look forward to hearing from you soon. 
© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Myth #13: Innovating is more about creativity in conception than persistence in implementation. 



Myth: Innovating is more about creativity in conception than persistence in implementation. 

Reality: Exceptions and interruptions to implementation impede progress. More time can be spent on the exceptions and interruptions than on the development and implementation of the concept. 



This is one of 20 myths and realities about innovation revealed in our qualitative survey report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying.  
If you would like to receive a  copy of this report, please contact lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com.

We look forward to hearing from you soon. 
© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Choosing to Innovate

In this era of "open innovation," most of us are painfully aware the funnel or pipeline metaphor is seriously flawed, if not entirely broken. Yet despite these flaws, conventional wisdom continues to use this image as the basic frame of reference for innovation management. The "stickiness" of the funnel is a testament to the power of image and metaphor to influence thinking, even when evidence and logic suggest otherwise.

Several realities challenge the appropriateness of the funnel mindset for managing innovation. First, experience. The funnel tells us to generate lots of ideas and jam them into the "front end" in hopes of getting one or two out the other end. Actual funnel experience teaches us that too many promising projects are killed too early and too many poor projects are revealed too late. Second, pipelines and funnels are about flows and flow control. This is appropriate when what is flowing is relatively homogeneous and consistent. Innovations are neither homogeneous nor consistent. While developing, innovations morph, they don't flow. Third, funnels and pipes, while open at either end, are closed, directive structures, not well suited to the cross-company collaborations envisioned by open innovation practices.  

       The funnel metaphor was popularized in 1962 in a report by SC Johnson and Booz Allen Hamilton, which described the new product development process. It has been the dominant metaphor for innovation management ever since. One reason for its persistence, particularly in light of so much contradicting experience, may come from the old adage, "replace a symbol with a symbol." This piece of ancient wisdom reminds us that humans won't let go of even outdated symbols unless and until they have another symbol to replace it.

This search for another "symbol" was the impetus behind the efforts of the Innovation Practitioners Network (IPN) over the past several years. The IPN has now focused entirely on the potential application of systems principles to innovating practice. Veteran innovators from a variety of companies have begun to find fresh insights and practical benefits from simply looking at corporate innovating from a systems perspective. 

Viewing innovating as a dynamic, complex system rather than a sequential process has revealed a few fundamental principles. For example, from a systems perspective, stage-gate resource management practices are viewed in a more balanced way: as necessary but not central or sufficient. Stage-gate is a part of the whole system, but is not the whole itself.  Innovation management that focuses exclusively on stage-gate management will likely miss the mark. Viewing corporate innovating from a systems perspective yields a more complete picture; and more complete pictures are essential in the new normal of volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous environments. 

Even more than completeness of the picture, a systems perspective to innovating quickly surfaces a challenging question: is the company choosing to innovate or merely following the prevailing wisdom now emanating from business schools and academic entrepreneurship programs. Deliberating choosing makes all the difference.

When a company's innovating efforts are viewed as a system, a logical question is "what kind of system is it or should it be?" The late Russell Ackoff considered choice as the most useful way to classify systems. Ackoff named four different types of systems: determinate, animate, social and ecological (see chart right). Determinate systems include mechanical systems like clocks or radios, whereas humans and animals are examples of animate systems. Social systems include companies, organizations and innovating systems, and ecological systems includes markets, cultures or rainforests.

Significant mistakes are often made when a model of a system of one type is misapplied to a system of a different type. Specifically, when we use the funnel metaphor as the central model of a company's innovating system, we use a determinate model to characterize a social system. Instead, we need to use a social model with both parts and the whole displaying choices to describe an innovating system. 

The quest for a "systematic" approach to innovating or a "repeatable process" can easily lead stewards of innovating systems on a quixotic search for a determinate system. This is a well-intentioned but misguided path. Innovating systems are not determinate, but social.

As a social system your company's innovating system displays choices both in its parts and in the system as a whole. The IPN’s current hypothesis is that many companies over-manage the parts and under-manage the whole of their innovating systems. For example, measurements are applied too early and too often to parts of the innovating system. Often the measurements, while quantifiable, are measuring that which may not be all that important to measure. At the same time, the overall choice whether to innovate or not (and why and where) is often not carefully thought through. This leaves the expressed purpose of the innovating system unnecessarily unclear and ambiguous for the company. This has led to much waste. 

Another hypothesis has to do with the innovators themselves. An essential task of innovators is to make sense out of the iterative trials and errors in which they are engaged. As Al Ward described innovation at Toyota as "learning applied to creating value," innovators must carefully read input and feedback. Reading input and feedback is the life-blood of successful innovating. The problem is that input and feedback are subject to delays and distortions. Making sense requires making choices, especially choosing what deserves attention. 

Better choice making comes from first having several promising options from which to choose. This is applicable not just to concepts and value propositions.  Better choices come from having more feedback more often, especially when that feedback is coming from the market or prospective end users. 

        One of the most delicate challenges for any innovation manager is to find the proper balance between constraints and freedom for innovators. The art of "earning autonomy by being relevant" has long been the hallmark of innovators. Innovators make better choices when they are working in between relevance and autonomy (freedom).

With all the current hype about innovating these days, I am beginning to wonder whether companies are thinking carefully enough about what it really means to innovate; especially, what it means to choose to innovate. Many are making investments in innovation processes, practices and portfolios without seriously considering the alternatives, much less the implications. Too many companies today are innovating in a reactive manner without choosing an explicit and thoughtful purpose.  

References to "innovation" and "entrepreneurship" have become pervasive and ubiquitous. This pervasiveness can leave the impression that innovation is not a matter of choice, but a necessity. But just because a company needs to innovate, doesn't mean it can. And just because a company can innovate, doesn't mean it will or will be successful doing so. Choosing to innovate is another thing entirely.
###


© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.



About the Author
For over 30 years, Lanny Vincent has been involved with the innovation efforts of major manufacturers and distributors in semiconductor-based, consumer electronics, consumer package goods, food products, forest products and sporting goods industries. Lanny is a student, teacher and coach of innovation management principles and practices. He facilitates invention workshops and innovation targeting for client companies with sustained commitments to STEM-intensive businesses.
Based in San Francisco, California, Lanny's practice involves him in consulting, facilitating, and innovation sponsor coaching with three practice areas: strategic invention, opportunity foresight, and innovating systems. Prior to establishing Vincent & Associates in 1990, Lanny was a partner and general manager of Synectics®, Inc., a creative problem solving and training firm. From 1981 to 1986 he was with Kimberly-Clark Corporation’s Innovation Management Group developing major product, materials and process innovations for their divisions worldwide and managing the Trends Project. In addition to his direct experience, Lanny’s formal training includes innovation management systems, total quality principles of manufacturing, creative problem solving, systems theory of family therapy, and social forecasting methods. He holds a Masters degree (M. Div.) from Yale University and a B.A. from Davidson College.
Lanny is the author of several books including The Maverick Way: Profiting From the Power of the Corporate Misfit (2000) and Prisoners of Hope: How Engineers (and Others) Get Lift for Innovating (2011). In 2005, his article “Innovation Midwives” was published in the Industrial Research Institute's Research-Technology Management peer-reviewed journal. Lanny is the founder of the Mavericks Roundtable and the Innovation Practitioners Network, a network of practitioners pioneering the art and practice of innovation management in established corporations. He can be contacted at lanny@innovationsthatwork.com.



 

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Myth #12: Innovating is about getting the process right ("the how's"). 



Myth:  Innovating is about getting the process right ("the how's"). 

Reality:  Companies invest in getting the process right because that's what they know. Companies shun uncertainty because it reminds them of what they don't know. Innovating is born out of what we don't know, and what we learn from experience (i.e., "failures" and "mistakes"). 



This is one of 20 myths and realities about innovation revealed in our qualitative survey report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying.  
If you would like to receive a  copy of this report, please contact lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com.

We look forward to hearing from you soon. 
© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Myth #11: Innovating is a verb but more often understood as an adjective


Myth #11:  Innovating is a verb but more often understood as an adjective.
Reality:  When companies carefully consider where and why they should innovate, the other questions of what and how fall into their proper place and perspective. 



This is one of 20 myths and realities about innovation revealed in our qualitative survey report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying.  
If you would like to receive a  copy of this report, please contact lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com.

We look forward to hearing from you soon. 
© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Myth #10: Innovating is about product differentiation


Myth #10:  Innovating is about product differentiation. 

Reality:  Innovating is about a lot more than a differentiated and superior performing product, including new ways of messaging, merchandizing, introducing and monetizing. 




This is one of 20 myths and realities about innovation revealed in our qualitative survey report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying.  
If you would like to receive a  copy of this report, please contact lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com.

We look forward to hearing from you soon. 
© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.



Monday, October 28, 2013

Myth #9: Innovating can involve anyone and anyone can be innovative


Myth #9:  Innovating can involve anyone and anyone can be innovative.
Reality:  Innovating requires perspectives that are, by definition, outside the norm. 



This is one of 20 myths and realities about innovation revealed in our qualitative survey report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying.  
If you would like to receive a  copy of this 20 page report, please contact lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com.

We look forward to hearing from you soon. 
© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.


Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Myth #8: Innovating is about being different

Myth #8: Innovating is about being different. 


Reality: Innovating requires getting to the truth and believing it enough to do something about it. 



This is one of 20 myths and realities about innovation revealed in our qualitative survey report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying.  
If you would like to receive a  copy of this 20 page report, please contact lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com.

We look forward to hearing from you soon. 
© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.


Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Myth #7: Innovating is about finding the flawless "gem" of an idea/concept


Myth #7: Innovating is about finding the flawless "gem" of an idea/concept. 

Reality: "Gems" must be polished and faceted, they don't come that way. Too few have the patience to polish and facet. 



This is one of 20 misconceptions and realities about innovation revealed in our qualitative survey report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying. If you would like to receive a  copy of this 20 page report, please contact lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.
© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Myth #6: Innovating requires the committee's cooperation and agreement


Myth #6: Innovating requires the committee's cooperation and agreement. 

Reality: Committees suck the oxygen out of ideas, innovators and innovating. 



This is one of 20 misconceptions and realities about innovation revealed in our qualitative survey report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying. If you would like to receive a  copy of this 20 page report, please contact lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.
© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Managing Innovation or Culture Change?

Increasingly I find myself engaged in conversations wherein clients present “innovation” as their stated interest, but as I listen more closely, their underlying goal turns out to be changing their organization's culture, often called “change management.” 

Many established companies are engaged in both change management and innovation management. While each may deal with change, innovation management and change management are different. Their goals, focus and purpose are distinct from each other.

Change management attempts to reform or transform the performance of the organization and its employees. The focus is on the core capabilities of the organization in serving existing customers and markets. Its purpose is to improve the organization's performance in the form of efficiencies, improvements or lower costs. Change management is inherently egocentric, focused inwardly on the organization itself. Its primary concern is improving productivity of operating throughputs.

Innovation management attempts to renew the organization's relevance to those it serves. The focus is on external conditions, factors and dynamics in discovering prospects and needs and converting them into customers and solutions, respectively. Its purpose is to develop and introduce new value propositions in the form of new products, processes or services. Innovation is inherently allocentric, focused outwardly on serving others. Its primary concern is nurturing efforts of developing new value.

A global consumer durables company I worked with for a number of years made a very explicit record of its innovation journey, stating that innovation would intentionally serve the broader and more fundamental purposes of organizational transformation. After more than a decade along this journey, the purposes of organizational culture change may have been realized. However, many express disappointment at the unrealized goals of their innovating. 

A company may require both innovation management and change management, and the efforts of one may reinforce the goals of the other. However, the two should not be thought of, managed or led as if they were one. Doing so produces much unnecessary frustration. Yet this may be happening more frequently than we realize, particularly since lean principles and the faddish “both/and” (vs. either/or) seem to have saturated the thinking of executive leaders.

A favorite book of mine is Differences That Make a Difference by Russell Ackoff, which is filled with insights for leaders and managers. Ackoff took 50 sets of common terms, which are frequently used interchangeably by mistake, and clarified their more appropriate and accurate use.

For example, many use “react” and “respond” as if they are synonyms. Ackoff suggests they are not. To make the difference explicit, he brings in a third term: “reflex.” Reflex is what happens automatically, in human physiology, it's autonomic. With a reflex we have no choice. In contrast, when we “react,” according to Ackoff, we have a choice but we don't exercise it. However, when we “respond,” we not only have a choice, but we consciously make it.

Were Ackoff alive today, I bet he would add another pair of concepts that are frequently confused with each other: innovation management and change management. That these two concepts are often used synonymously has led to a great deal of wasted effort, disillusioned innovators and cynical leaders. All this could be avoided with a bit more attention to the differences between innovation management and change management.

Detached analysts like economists and sociologists use the word “innovation” to describe how new ideas, values, know-how or products diffuse into a population and culture. As a result, these analysts tend to view innovation retrospectively. Everett Rogers in 1962 offered a diffusion theory for innovation that has become synonymous with innovation itself. Popular updates to Rogers' original theory include Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point and Geoffrey Moore's Crossing the Chasm. Diffusion is a type of change that describes how something new (product, process, technology, idea or knowledge) becomes adopted by a market or society.

Entrepreneurs and innovators use “innovation” to describe both the process (innovating) and the result (an innovation) of their efforts. As active participants, innovators typically view innovation prospectively, often with a more detailed and close-up perspective. Peter Drucker, a father of modern management theory, was one of the first to take this point of view. Drucker wrote Innovation and Entrepreneurship in 1985 in which he describes innovation as the systematic and diagnostic discipline or tool entrepreneurs use to create, develop and introduce new value for prospective or current customers.  

A third use of the same word “innovation” comes from organizational leaders. Their use of “innovation” describes organizational changes required to dramatically improve performance. As leaders who are tasked with the process and outcomes of organizational change, these so-called “innovations” can be classified as either reformations or transformations. According to Ackoff, “reformations” seek performance improvements through organizational behavior change without changing structure or function; while “transformations” require changes in structure or function. 

When “innovation” is used to describe change management, the primary focus is on the organization and its performance.  However, when “innovation” is used in the contexts of economists and innovators, the primary focus is on a new value proposition the organization is developing or introducing to those it serves.

Both change management and innovation management involve diagnosis, making changes and dealing with resistance, which is often underestimated. Yet the counter-measures each employs to address this resistance are distinct. When organizational change efforts and innovation management are attempted simultaneously, the change efforts will often unintentionally produce new strains of resistance to the innovation and innovators. 

If change management and innovation management are attempted simultaneously then some insulation mechanism will be required (see “Innovation Midwives: Sustaining Innovation Streams in Established Companies,” Research-Technology Management, 2005). Ignoring the need to insulate innovation and innovators, or even worse, integrating the change management effort with innovation management, will cause all sorts of waste and confusion, which does not have to be repeated. 

The difference between innovation management and change management is often ignored or poorly understood by well intentioned leaders who say that both are needed. The problem is in managing and leading both as if they are the same thing. Consider what Drucker wrote in 1973 in his book Management: “Because its purpose is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two—and only these two—basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs.”

That innovation is often regarded as an exception and interruption to “real work” is a testament to this pervasive confusion—a failure to recognize a difference that makes a difference. Innovations renew an organization's relevance to those it serves. Culture change aims to improve the performance of those doing the serving. An organization should always seek to improve what it's currently doing. Sooner or later, however, every organization needs to renew its relevancy to those it serves.



This article by Lanny Vincent originally appeared in Vincent & Associates, Ltd. newsletter Innovating Perspectives in September 2013. For other issues of our newsletter, please go to www.innovationsthatwork.com or call (415) 387-1270.  

 




 

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Myth #5: Innovating is something you can broadly decide to do and then just expect it to happen. 



Myth #5:  Innovating is something you can broadly decide to do and then just expect it to happen. 


Reality:  Innovating requires deep understanding of specific problems and time spent trying to solve them.



This is one of 20 misconceptions and realities about innovation revealed in our recent
qualitative survey report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying.   

If you would like to receive a copy of this 20 page report, please contact 
lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com. 

We look forward to hearing from you soon.


© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd. 

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Myth #4: Innovating is ruled by processes and norms like any other business field.

Myth #4: 

Innovating is ruled by processes and norms like any other business field, like accounting
and manufacturing. 
 
Reality: 
Innovating can benefit from some processes and metrics. However, instinct or "gut" is 
inescapable, and when overwhelmed by processes and metrics, innovating stops, or 
evolves into the superficial and illusory. 




This is one of 20 misconceptions and realities about innovation revealed in our qualitative survey 
report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying.
 
If you would like to receive a copy of this 20 page report, please contact 
lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com. 
We look forward to hearing from you soon.


 
© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.  


Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Myth #3: Innovating is about the idea.

Myth #3:  Innovating is about the idea. 

Reality: Innovating is about value to the company and to the customer. 



This is one of 20 misconceptions and realities about innovation revealed in our qualitative survey 
report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying.
 
If you would like to receive a copy of this 20 page report, please contact 
lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com. 
We look forward to hearing from you soon.


 
© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.  
 

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Myth #2: Innovating is luck and serendipity.

20 Misconceptions and Realities about Innovation

Myth: Innovating is luck and serendipity.

Reality: Companies can structure, organize and fund innovating as a core capability.  


This is one of 20 misconceptions and realities about innovation revealed in our qualitative survey report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying.

If you would like to receive a copy of this 20 page report, please contact lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com. We look forward to hearing from you soon.


© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd. 

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Myth #1: Corporate innovating requires freedom from constraint.

20 misconceptions and realities about innovation

Myth: Corporate innovating requires freedom from constraint.

Reality: The more profound innovations occur because barriers and constraints are overcome.  


This is one of 20 misconceptions and realities about innovation revealed in our survey report entitled, What Veterans of Corporate Innovating Are Saying.


In May, Vincent & Associates, Ltd. conducted a qualitative survey of about 50 veteran innovators to find out what is really going on underneath all the hype about innovation.

Unlike other opinion surveys, this one went deep by tapping the experienced wisdom of seasoned veterans, each of whom remains engaged in corporate innovating efforts. The experience of each respondent on average was close to two decades.

The survey revealed in general:

• Innovators not having enough time for innovating efforts because of their "day job,"

• Managers lowering the threshold of what qualifies as an innovation,

• Leaders reacting to uncertainties by avoiding risk, and

• All complaining about the poverty of insight amidst a flood of data.

Despite significant contextual differences from company to company, the survey found common issues hindering corporate innovating: persistent interruptions, ad hoc orientations to innovating, role ambiguities, and system versus innovating system imbalances.

Three broad recommendations are offered:

• Count what matters, not what is measurable.

• Be "choiceful" rather than reactive by first creating options, so you have choices.

• Neither integrate nor isolate innovating efforts. Instead invite everyone to seek improvements and, in the process, a few will emerge who actually innovate.

If you would like to receive a copy of this 20 page report, please contact lanny@innovationsthatwork.com or jane@innovationsthatwork.com. We look forward to hearing from you soon.


© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd. 



Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Little Red Riding Could: A Tale of Intrapreneurship By Paula Rosch

Once upon a time…in the midst of a big company, there was a small office occupied by a young woman. She had an uncanny ability to understand the needs of consumers and turn those insights into successful product ideas. That, and her predilection for peddling her red bike to work, brought her the nickname of Little Red Riding Could. Others thought of her as “one of those creative people.” One day, her CEO said to her, “Our business is very ill and needs help. Why don’t you pick one of those product ideas of yours and take it to market?  Be very careful, though. It’s competitive out there. Don’t talk to anyone and stick to the corporate path as you work and never leave it. That way there will be no risk.”
 
Little Red Riding Could embraced her new project and started to make a to-do list. “Don’t worry”, she told the CEO, “I’ll take my idea all the way to market and never stop.” The young woman had good intentions, but soon after starting she picked up a popular magazine and saw an article with a title that seemed to be related to her project. She stuck a green Post-it® sticker to the title page so she could easily find it later, but then another article caught her eye; putting her to-do list aside, she sat down to read and didn’t finish until the journal’s pages were heavy with idea-laden Post-it® notes.

Suddenly, Little Red Riding Could remembered the task she had set out to do, but she was intrigued by something she had read, and she took a new direction. Instead of hurrying ahead with her plan, she decided to run a few errands around town to look for some materials she knew the company would not have at hand. Needing a jolt after all her activity, she stopped at a coffee shop, had a latte, and looked through her purchases. The lyrics of a song playing over the sound system provided a key to how her product might come together, and she hurried back to her workshop to construct a sample.

She took her work to one of her engineer friends. “Bob”, she said, “What if instead of designing the product like we planned, we tried something like this?” showing him the sample and describing its potential as he quickly did some sketches on notepaper.

By now, Little Red Riding Could was deep within the world of her own creativity, and unknowingly under the scrutiny of some hidden and very unfriendly eyes. As she left Bob’s office, the swish of someone behind her made her shiver a little. She was afraid she had strayed too far from her assignment and hurried away to get back on track.

She headed down the hall but was startled by an authoritative, gruff voice: “Where are you going with that sample?” It was a high level manager in the corporation. “I’m taking it to market,” she told him. “Our business is ill and this will help it get better.”

Well, the manager didn’t like the looks of the new idea. It looked different. It looked complicated. It didn’t look like anything they had done before. He didn’t want it to go any further, so he stalled for time. “Why don’t you put together a presentation to the department? I know everyone will want to hear about your new product idea. Let’s have the meeting tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.”

Feeling happy that the manager was supporting her product idea, Little Red Riding Could launched into preparing a compelling presentation. Meanwhile, the manager rushed back to his office and had his administrative assistant set up an 1 o'clock meeting to forewarn his own managers: “I don’t want to spend any money or time on this idea,” he told them.

When Little Red Riding Could showed up for the meeting with her data and her prototypes, the manager and his deputies were there. Their narrow eyes and suspicious demeanor made them all seem a little wolfish, not like the idea benefactor she had met in the hall the day earlier.

"I've called this group together to discuss your idea," said the manager, and opened the discussion up to the group.

"I don't think we will make enough money on this idea" said the financial manager. "My" said Red, "what a big profit you need!"

"I don't think we can advertise this idea," said the marketing manager. "My," said Red, "what a big audience you need!"

"I don't think we can make this idea work," said the research manager. "My," said Red, "what a big machine you need!"

They argued and protested against Red and her idea until they had gobbled up all of her confidence. The CEO, passing by the meeting room, noticed the loud protests coming through the closed door. She decided to intervene, and when she saw the manager and his cronies ganging up on Red's idea, she said "I have been watching you discourage new ideas for some time now, and I am not happy about it." She gave him the ax.

Little Red Riding Could went on to bring another product to market. The consumers were happy and the company regained its health. Feeling proud and yet lucky that she had skirted another potential disaster, Red told herself, "Never again will I stray from the path and go off on tangents to find new ideas...at least, not until next time."

© 2013 Paula Rosch, The Paula Rosch Group. All Rights Reserved.

Paula Rosch is a discovery-to-invention innovator with hands-on technology, marketing, and product development expertise. Paula is the inventor on nearly 100 patents, uncovering original insights about human behavior through her ScoutPathTM process and translating them into commercialized brands and products with great consumer appeal and staying power. You can contact her at paula@paularosch.com.


This article by Paula Rosch originally appeared in Vincent & Associates, Ltd. newsletter Innovating Perspectives in July 2013. For other issues of our newsletter, please go to www.innovationsthatwork.com or call (415) 387-1270.