Parenting Children and Innovations

The challenges, joys and dynamics of raising children provide an interesting metaphor for managing innovation.

A couple of months ago we received a letter from Carol Chase, the principal of our daughter’s school. The entire letter was devoted to some sound advice this principal had received from her mother about raising children. She gave it a fresh title: “Five Strategies for Raising Self-Reliant Children in a Self-Indulgent World,” but the wisdom in it was aged to perfection. Here are the five strategies:

1.     Say “No”: “When your child, whether four or fourteen, is demanding something more…your child needs you. Your child needs you to say “no.” Children of all ages need clearly defined boundaries, limits and expectations in order to develop self-reliance and personal responsibility.” Could a more pertinent principle be spoken for nascent innovations? Like children these innovation efforts to hear “no” so as to focus and concentrate their energies where development is needed. Without the “no’s,” innovations lose focus and discipline and can easily squander resources.

2.     Hold, Hug and Talk: “When your child is having a meltdown, your child needs you to give him or her a quiet space in which to calm down. Then it is essential to problem-solve with your child.  This is the beginning of teaching your child self-discipline.  It is best to start with a hold and a hug, and then begin the talk for problem-solving.” MOMs (or mentors of mavericks) are an often ignored but necessary role frequently missing in established companies seeking to innovate. Without a competent and present MOM (not to be confused with a sponsor, who is also necessary), innovations don’t receive the insulation from the “adult” (and performance metrics-oriented) world of the established revenue stream. MOMs and innovation midwives enable this “holding, hugging and talking” that allows for a set-based concurrent engineering” so effectively used by Toyota’s knowledge-based product development philosophy (see Michael N. Kennedy’s book, Product Development for the Lean Enterprise).

3.     Teach Money: “Living in a society that is consumer rich in material goods requires that children learn financial responsibility at an early age,” says Chase about raising children.  Hasn’t a similar point been  made about managing innovation by Clayton Christiansen when he admonishes us to be “patient for growth, but impatient for profit.”? (See his book, The Innovator’s Solution.) As a friend of mine recently said, reflecting on teaching his own kids about money: “When you have earned it, you treat it differently.”

4.     Teach Manners: “Your child needs you to teach social responsibility [which] begins by learning respectful communication, behavior, participation and contribution within the first community unit for a child—the family.”  In our 2003 five-company study of innovation practices, we found one of the major tasks in which “innovation midwives” or MOMs need to be diligent is in “honoring the core.”  If managers of established revenue streams feel in any way a competitive threat (for resources) coming from within the organization, they will consciously—and often unconsciously—work against the innovation.

5.     Live Your Values: “Your child needs you to teach core values. The clearer you are about your core values, the more solid the base for your child. This requires ongoing introspection on the part of the parent and an outgoing manifestation of living the values. Children are watching their parents always. They will do what they see parents do, not what parents say.”  If the established business is oriented to the purpose of serving the needs of its customers—even needs customers may not yet recognize—then it will not only talk the talk of innovation, but also will walk the walk.

Our innovation efforts not only need effective parenting, they also need effective parents—mavericks, project managers, technology gatekeepers, MOMs and “midwives.” Would we not be more successful at our innovation efforts if we took the time, effort, care and love children require of their parents?

This article by Lanny Vincent originally appeared in Innovating Perspectives in May 2004. For other issues of our newsletter, please go to www.innovationsthatwork.com or call (415) 387-1270.  

© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd. 

Is "Craft" missing from your Innovating?

Several years ago I visited the National Inventors Hall of Fame in Akron, Ohio (it has since moved to Alexandria, Virginia). The building in Akron was unconventionally designed so visitors began their tour on the top floor, not on the first floor. Starting at the top and winding my way down, the novel layout ushered me through a historical journey of inventing in the United States. My tour ended where the names and pictures of the inventor inductees were hung with appropriate respect on the ground floor level.   

Some of the top floor exhibits chronicled the early days of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Several panels described what the USPTO used to require of aspiring inventors and patent recipients in its earliest years. Requirements included written descriptions, claims and drawings, of course, but also a working model. 

In those early days, prolific inventors were often paired with anonymous partners, nameless craftsman who built working models of their inventor's inventions. These mechanical contraptions demonstrated that the inventor's conception could be "reduced to practice." After a while, the USPTO became increasingly challenged to find space to store these models. Finally, after the catastrophic fire of 1836, the USPTO abandoned its requirement for a working model. I have often wondered what may have been lost when the USPTO dropped this requirement.

Without the requirement for a working model, the guild of artisan model makers disappeared. Prior to the 1836 fire, approximately 10,000 patents had been issued. Now there are some 50,000,000 issued patents. In hindsight, it was probably necessary for the USPTO to abandon the requirement for a working model; however, in doing so, the model maker became obsolete. 

My visit to the National Inventors Hall of Fame left me wondering whether a craft orientation is missing from our modern innovating efforts. My hypothesis is that in our current economic environment wherein so much attention is given to invention-less intrapreneurship and innovation, corporate innovating might remain disabled due in part to the persistent omission of craft in the innovating process. Does craft still have something essential to contribute to innovating?

By asking this question I could easily be accused of nostalgic longing for the old days of mechanical engineering. Current technologies choreograph electrons and make photons dance to the scores of software, firmware or middleware. We have come a long way from the Rube Goldberg age of mechanical contraptions that once took up too much space in the USPTO. But I wonder, despite the reality and efficiency of creating working models in 3-D CADs and simulators, have we lost what craft can contribute to innovating efforts?

Consider the meaning of "craft" particularly in the context of innovating. Might this seemingly old-fashion mindset, skill and approach still have something to contribute, especially to the development of "empowering" innovations (as Clayton Christensen calls those innovations that create jobs and new intrinsic value)?  And when we avoid crafting our innovations, might we be missing something essential?

The English word craft derives from the German word kraft, which means "strong" or "force." The word derives from the German adjective kräftiger, suggesting "strong, sturdy, vigorous, powerful, bold." For those familiar with paper chemistry, think Kraft pulping—the product and process invention of Carl Dahl and enabled by G.H. Tomlinson. Kraft pulping converts wood into wood pulp to produce near pure cellulose resulting in paper of superior strength in a relatively inexpensive manner. 

Today "craft" and its cousin "artisan," connote small-scale, made by hand, albeit with great care and skill. In the context of innovating, it suggests a deeply intimate, feedback-rich set of learning interactions between the creator and his or her creation. When a craftsman engages in his craft, tacit knowledge and skill is formed, and this is the very kind of experienced-based knowledge Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi infer as the foundational phenomena of innovating itself (see The Knowledge Creating Company).

Viewed from the point of view of early stage innovating, craft could provide an essential "force" in the formation of an innovation. Viewed from the point of view of large-scale mass production of standardized products, however, craft appears irrelevant or quaint. Innovating with more of a craft mindset, however, may increase the probability that outcomes are more than merely clever, cute or creative. Craft may instill innovation with sufficient care, intrinsic value and substance early, giving it a chance to weather the inevitable watering down that comes in the later stages of market introduction and launch.

We can’t ignore the post-industrialization realities of mass production and mass markets in a globalized economy. Neither can we ignore the fact that large, complex and global corporations are typically dissatisfied with the financial returns from their innovating efforts. Might these corporations be too impatient for growth and not impatient enough for profits? Might a more modest craft orientation of "reducing" the invention (and innovation) to practice actually be the quicker and more trustworthy way to determine if prospective customers recognize sufficient value to convince the CFO that profits can be sustained? 

The innovation economist David Teece did a study in 1986 commissioned by the U.S. Commerce Department. At that time the Department feared the strengthening ebb tide of manufacturing going offshore. Many wondered if this worrisome tide would leave erosions of profit, know-how and intellectual property. Teece persuaded the Commerce Department and many others not to worry. Teece concluded that more profits accrue to those with the complementary business assets (distribution, sales, etc., which take inventions to market) than to those who are only owners of intellectual property. 

While I am in no position to argue with Teece's findings; the logical inference from his conclusions may have added to the notion that companies should invent and innovate only what the company can take to market. Henry Chesbrough, the guru of open innovation, called this the "not-sold-here" mindset. Chesbrough named it one of the primary barriers to technological innovation. To be fair, Teece subsequently explored the notion of "dynamic capabilities"—a company's ability to reconfigure its own complementary business assets—as a sign of its adaptive, innovating potential. But the train had already left the station.

Large companies search for big innovation opportunities often mistakenly assuming they have prescience to discern the big from the little before the little gets big. Yet large opportunities seldom start out large. More often these opportunities start small and grow into large opportunities. This seems to be the case for innovating as well. 

Might innovating efforts that begin with a craft orientation end up being "strong, sturdy, vigorous, powerful and bold" enough to warrant further investment in scalable growth and expansion? Might our impatience for growth (and misplaced patience for profits) be factors keeping us dissatisfied with the puny financial returns from innovating? Might our distain for the craft approach to innovating be causing us to avoid the more potent and substantive "empowering" innovations that create jobs?

There are innovations that may require both product and process inventions—like the semiconductor or kraft pulping. Are we avoiding the risk of innovations that require both product and process inventions? Are we deploying our engineering and scientific talent to “sustaining” innovations and “efficiency” innovations (reducing costs of making and distributing) because they are more distributable, scalable and extensible? 

At least one large global company may not have lost its sense of craft when it comes to innovating. Consider Corning. In 2001, in their book, Corning and the Craft of Innovation, authors Margaret Graham and Alex Shuldiner wrote, "What made Corning distinctive was that it not only built the environment for scientific work and collected a solid knowledge base but also continued to draw on and maintain strong craft traditions…avoiding some of the worst excesses of ‘scientific management’."

Scientific management may point us to more easily distributable and scalable innovations. However, it doesn't necessarily mean they should be distributed, scaled or extended. Innovating may be more of collaborative craft, at least in the early stages, than a repeatable process, unless of course, you are satisfied with sustaining and efficiency innovations. 

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

© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd. 

Exercising Patience

In moral matters, patience is a virtue. In innovation, patience is not only a virtue, it’s a necessity—a corporate “muscle” in need of constant exercise. 

Venture capitalists are not the only ones losing their patience these days. Established companies competing for financial capital and talent push harder to show better results, faster. Declining investments in R&D (as a percentage of sales), shorter cycle times, and every increasing “D” in proportion to “R,” are just a few symptoms of this growing corporate impatience. Many companies’ patience muscles may be getting a little weak.

The rewards for patience can be significant. R&D investments can produce returns that surprise even investors. For example, Kimberly-Clark Corporation originally estimated the disposable training pants market to be $250 million. Yet in a few short years after they introduced Pull-Ups®, sales exceeded $450 million for their product alone. While Pull-Ups was introduced to the market in 1989, it was almost ten years after the two product development visionaries—Glen Fleischer and Walt Pearls—patiently listened to mother after mother to help them conceive of this new product. Perhaps the cycle time could have been shorter, but it’s dubious the gestation period for this innovation could have been rushed.

In their impatience to make the number, many companies risk missing out on bigger numbers than can come from moments of discovery that precede invention and innovation—moments that require patience.

From the growing number of market discovery assignments and collaborative invention assignments we do each year, a pattern appears to be emerging—discovery precedes invention and successful innovation. Invention can certainly occur without some preceding discovery. Yet innovations that follow a fresh discovery—be it a surprise result in the lab or a new perspective on the market—seem to carry a quality far superior to and more strategic than their “stand alone” counterparts. If this is true then how can a company build in the regular exercise that the muscle of patience requires?

Strategy can be one way of making patience a regular practice. Cisco takes a minority interest in smaller companies with interesting technology for a time before acquiring them—and their talent.  Policy can be another way of building patience. The board of Marriott International, among others, deliberately refuses to make decisions at the same meeting in which an issue is raised. They wait until the next meeting, just to increase the quality of the decision by adding a little patience. Segregating and dedicating selected resources to an effort is yet another way of exercising patience.

Ezra Pound said, “Glance is the enemy of wisdom.” We are coming to believe that wisdom, and the patience required to develop it, may be the silent partner that sustains a company’s innovation efforts well into its future.

This article by Lanny Vincent originally appeared in Innovating Perspectives in April 2000. For other issues of our newsletter, please go to www.innovationsthatwork.com or call (415) 387-1270.  

© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd. 

Positioned to Receive Signals

An unwritten rule for assembling a working group—especially for inventive or creative problem solving—is to have no more than three levels of the organization’s hierarchy present in the same room at the same time. Sometimes you want only two. When too many levels are in the same place at the same time, asymmetries of power can inhibit dissent and constrain the free expression of divergent thinking—both essential ingredients in collaborative and generative efforts.

As there are exceptions to every rule, there are to this one as well. Exceptions include when higher-ups have collegial rapport with their direct reports or when the discernment of faint signals from complex and ambiguous external conditions outweighs the need for command and control directives. Thanks to Greg Blythe, master technology strategist at HP, for bringing our attention to the Cynefin framework’s description of complex versus chaotic conditions (see Wikipedia’s entry on Cynefin—a very useful diagnostic taxonomy for different types of external conditions). Cynefin goes even so far as to suggest that command and control oriented leadership may be appropriate for turbulent and chaotic conditions, but is inappropriate for complex and uncertain conditions. 

Over the past few months I have had the privilege of facilitating several working sessions where both these exceptions were in play. Success was achieved, much to the credit of the ego-strength (i.e., humility) of the participating higher ups, and the guidance of Cynefin. Had we encountered a lack of rapport between organizational levels or had we misdiagnosed the type of external conditions, organizational power would have presented a significant hindrance to these innovating efforts. Why? 

Innovating efforts depend so heavily on reading faint signals—signals that come to and through the bottom, middle and top levels of an organization’s hierarchy.  If the bottom, middle and top are not freed from the signal distortions of power, the ability of the whole organization to respond will be crippled, often leading to a response that makes matters worse.

When market conditions are sufficiently clear and external dynamics are sufficiently known, the delegation and distribution of power is relatively clear and straightforward in corporate governance and management systems. Here a command and control mindset works pretty well. Leaders lead, managers manage, employees follow and governing bodies oversee when operating conditions for corporations are relatively stable. 

However, when external market conditions become more complex and volatile, leading, managing, following and governing require participants in governance and management systems to leave their “fixed” positions and move into the clear so as to read the faint signals, which need to be discerned. Like a basketball team with possession of the ball, players need to leave their set positions and move to free themselves to be open to receive the ball from their teammates and find an open shot.

Disruptions often turn familiar, friendly environments into unfamiliar, unfriendly ones. Whether those disruptions come from another’s innovation, the arrival of a tipping point, a gradual slippage of relevance, or the seemingly spontaneous combustion of a complex soup of factors, the disrupted will likely always outnumber the disruptors.

Disruption can be lessened by a governance, leadership and management system that is able to flex itself from a “command and control” set to a “sense and respond” movement. The heart of this latter posture—actually a “readiness” more than a posture—resides in collaborative dialogues, not in hierarchical reviews.” (See Adaptive Enterprise: Creating and Leading Sense and Respond Organizations by Stephan H. Haeckel, and also Michael Kusnic and Daniel Owen’s piece on “Collaborative Decision-Making in Adaptive Enterprises” in Appendix B of Haeckel's book.)

Much of the innovation literature and practice will keep senior executives and board members fixed in their reviewer roles. But when they come out of those fixed roles and find the “opening,” their individual and collective contributions to the company’s innovating system increase significantly.

A company’s innovating system requires a constant balancing and rebalancing between governing, leading and managing. Recent investigations by the Innovation Practitioners Network in applying systems principles to innovating practice suggest too many corporate innovating systems are over-managed and under-led, and quite possibly under-governed.

In the rebalancing, the governance, leadership and management of innovating systems should always leave plenty of room to invite the governors (i.e., innovation council or board members), leaders (i.e., sponsors) and managers (including midwives) to leave their starting positions, at least temporarily, and share with each other what each is perceiving from the complexities and turbulence of the external environment.

Without these collaborative dialogues, undistorted by rank power, knowledge will remain segmented, dots will remain unconnected, innovating will suffer, innovators will be handicapped, and the opposing team will likely find the hoop more often.    



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

© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd. 

Fear, Faith and Innovation

One of the silent killers of innovation efforts may be fear. With the uncertainty in every stage of the innovation process, fear can easily seep in and disable the innovator, especially since the innovator is typically working against the odds. 

One of the most obvious fears associated with doing something new, and against the odds, is the fear of failure. (This fear has an interesting cousin called the fear of success—e.g., the jealousy for resources that a ‘prodigal’ sibling innovation may appear to steal from the ‘elder’ and established sibling business.) However, there are likely other types of fears that become particularly acute during certain stages of the innovation process. For example, the fear of rejection can keep an idea generator from voicing an idea that could lead to a breakthrough.

Innovation efforts involve working through four fundamental challenges—discovering something new, inventing something useful, incarnating this invention into a practical context and tangible value, and finally introducing the invention to the market and/or organization.  Might not each of these challenges have its own “demon” for the innovator; in other words, its own dominant type of fear? For instance, the fear of “unlearning” (i.e., appearing “naïve”) may be the demon against which innovators fight in the discovery stage of an innovation effort.  For the invention stage, it may be the fear of rejection. For the reduction-to-practice stage, it may be the fear of failure. And for the introduction and integration stage, it may be the fear of insignificance (e.g., realizing that while valuable, the innovation might not be the “be all and end all”).

“Drive out fear” was one of Edward Deming’s fourteen timeless principles which became popular during the total quality era a few years ago. Deming’s principle has a timeless relevance to innovation management as well. But how do you do that?

For a couple of years now we’ve been toying with a hypothesis regarding the role faith plays in the innovation process. While successful innovations are difficult to predict and diverse in their character and circumstances, the accounts of how successful innovations have developed have at least one theme in common—an overcoming of the odds. When overcoming the odds is a part of the plot line, both Hollywood and the world’s spiritual traditions know that the story involves a little bit of faith on the part of the innovator. If innovation is about overcoming the odds and their associated fears, then faith may play a larger role in innovation than is often conceded. As many of the world’s spiritual traditions have known for a long time, one of the most effective antidotes to fear is faith.

Justifying innovation investments, especially financially, continues to be a perennial management challenge. Net Present Value, options valuation methods, scorecards, and other attempts have not been able to completely satisfy those who are searching for a defensive rationale. Given the general dissatisfaction with any clear and definitive financial criteria for innovation investments, it is fascinating that so many companies continue to invest—sometimes significant portions of their resources—in the pursuit of growth-enabling innovations. So what is it that sustains this motivation if it is not the numbers? Might it be faith? [Faith as defined by one spiritual tradition as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.”]

Aside from all this philosophical hypothesizing, there may even be practical management implications in all this as well. Faith teaches us to face our ears, whether with the child-like awe required of the learner to unlearn what he thought he knew, or with the confidence required of the idea generator to expect and anticipate rejection, or with the persistence required of the inventor whose 99% perspiration results from repeated trials and errors, or with the humility required of the introducer/integrator to stand aside and let the light shine on the innovation itself. Awe, confidence, persistence and humility…aren’t these all synonyms for faith?

We would appreciate your thoughts, experiences and connections with any or all parts of this hypothesis—the role faith has played in your innovation efforts. The dialogue itself should help us each with more, better and even faster, innovations that work®.

This article by Lanny Vincent originally appeared in Innovating Perspectives in September 2003. Subsequently Lanny wrote the book Prisoners of Hope: How Innovators and Others Get Lift for Innovating (published by Westbow Press in 2011), which expands and elaborates on the subject of this article. For more information, please go to http://www.innovationsthatwork.com/books-poh.html

For other back issues of our newsletter, please visit www.innovationsthatwork.com or call (415) 387-1270.  

© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd. 

Feel the Temperature of Change

You probably heard the story about the two frogs. One frog is dropped into a pot of boiling water and immediately jumps out. A second frog is dropped into a pot of lukewarm water, the water temperature is gradually increased, the frog stays put and eventually boils to death.

The difference between the two frogs can be instructive to those of us at risk of becoming victims of our own success. Of the two frogs, the one at greater risk is obviously the one who was unaware of the threatening, albeit gradual, changes occurring in his immediate environment. The frog who survived was the one who had enough “feel” for his environment to allow him to respond appropriately.

How sensitive a corporation is to its environment can be crucial to its long-term success. For example, how well does your company or division update its understanding of the immediate business environment? And, how well does your team “sense” the subtle and gradual changes in that environment, especially those that signal lasting change?

Sensitivity, more than precision or accuracy, may be what is most important. The frog that survived did not calibrate the exact temperature of the water. He leapt out because it was too hot. That was all he needed to know. When conditions are turbulent or in a period of rapid change, it may be more useful to get a general feel for the major factors than to worry about the precision of the environment analysis.

The president of Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc., Michael Sinyard, sensed the water boiling in the late 1970s. He began to notice how some enthusiasts were rigging up their bicycles to ride on mountain trails in Marin County, California, and Boulder, Colorado. In the subtle changes, he saw an opportunity, and was the first to capitalize on the mountain bike craze. He changed what as once a parts distribution company into the first and leading mountain bike company in the world. Being alert to the significance of subtle and early changes, and having a willingness to act even with an imprecise understanding, must be counted as essential factors that led to his success.

Karl Weick, in his book Sensemaking in Organizations, relates the story of a young Hungarian lieutenant who sends his men into the Swiss Alps on a reconnaissance mission. Shortly after they left, it began to snow and soon turned into a blizzard. The lieutenant feared he had sent his men into the icy wilderness to die. Three days later, however, the men returned. Relieved, the lieutenant asked where they had been and how they made their way back. They said they considered themselves lost and waited for their death. Then one of them found a map in his pocket, which calmed them down. They pitched camp, lasted out the snowstorm, and then, with the map, they discovered their bearings and here they were. The lieutenant asked to see the map and had a good look at it. He discovered to his astonishment that it was not a map of the Alps at all. Instead, it was a map of the Pyrenees! Weick concludes, “This incident raises the intriguing possibility that when you are lost, any old map will do!”

Understanding the environment with precise accuracy was not necessary, but the decision to get moving was.

This article by Lanny Vincent originally appeared in Innovating Perspectives in June 1996. For other issues of our newsletter, please go to www.innovationsthatwork.com or call (415) 387-1270.  

© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd. 

Discovery Channels

It is generally understood that an innovation effort, along with the innovator, in an established company needs protection. How that protection is provided is another thing.

How protection is provided to innovations may be similar to the dilemma parents face in their attempts to regulate how much, and when, their kids are exposed to the various realities of life. Too much protection can leave a child dependent and ill prepared. Too little protection can push a child beyond what they can handle emotionally and psychologically.

The same can be said for nascent innovations. On one hand, under exposure to the external circumstances and realities of the intended user can stunt the development of the innovation.  On the other hand, over or premature exposure to these realities risks a “failure” so visible that few have the persistence or courage to learn from it.

Our society’s increasing propensity to give its children antibiotics at the first sign of a cold or flu was the topic of a recent conversation I had with a veteran innovation sponsor and “midwife.”  Both of us were wondering outloud whether we are, in effect, weakening the next generation’s resistance to disease. It is a difficult dilemma for parents these days.  With all the pharmacological options available to us—even anti-bacterial soaps—are we, in effect, contributing to a quietly developing longer term problem to address a short term fear for our children’s health?  Might many of us as innovators be guilty of something similar with innovations brewing in the labs and internal development efforts of our companies?

Gaining and maintaining the right amount of exposure at the right time for the iterative nurture and development most innovations is an art, requiring the experienced counsel of innovation veterans.  Over exposure to internal influences and under exposure to external realities can kill an innovation before it has the time to see the light of day.  However, over exposure to external realities and under exposure to internal influences can stimulate the “not-invent-here syndrome” and various other “autoimmune” responses. So how do you find the right balance? 

One of our clients in the consumer food business looks to what they refer to as “discovery channels” to provide the right balance of hard external realities and sheltered nurture for their not-quite-ready-for-prime-time innovations.  In this case the “discovery channel” is a retailer whose requirement for “turns” is modest enough and who is willing to allow the manufacturer direct contact with their customers and floor personnel to enable unmediated access to feedback.

One of the advantages of such a “discovery channel” is that the feedback is real, not simulated. Another advantage is that a “natural” demand can be more realistically estimated at least for the early stages of a new product’s introduction, as consumers discover the product more or less on their own.  In other words, “discovery channels” can provide the innovating company a better signal-to-noise ratio, while avoiding the distorting influences of the typically promotional atmosphere of the mass marketplaces.

While the form of the “discovery channel” this consumer business uses may be more applicable to consumer package goods businesses, the principles are potentially applicable in other types of industries as well. Software companies use so-called “beta-sites” to test their programs in use.  Equipment manufacturers use “pilot” projects to gain experience that can be trusted.  Whatever the particular form of “discovery channel,” finding such a venue for each innovation can provide the innovation with sufficient experience in establishing its own identity; it can then hold its own in the inevitable sibling rivalry for resources within the company’s established businesses.

This article by Lanny Vincent originally appeared in Innovating Perspectives in November 2003. For other issues of our newsletter, please go to www.innovationsthatwork.com or call (415) 387-1270.  

© 2013 Vincent & Associates, Ltd.