AbleBrains

Why We Bemoan the Lack of Corporate Innovation

Susan Popper, SAP's SVP of Marketing Communications knows I'm an innovation hound.  I love trying to drive in directions that will grow the business.  So she handed me the latest McKinsey Quarterly entitled, "How companies approach innovation: a McKinsey Global Survey."

The abstract of which says:

...executives say innovation is a top priority for driving growth... but respondents point out flaws in how their companies manage and govern innovation.  Most companies don't focus on innovations they say will have the greatest effect on performance, for example, and innovation is seldom a part of leadership agendas.

Although 70% of leaders tap innovation as a lever for driving growth,  the above is depressing, at least for an innovation hound like me because...

...[these] leaders lack confidence in their innovation decisions. 

But companies, which talk the talk around innovation tend not to put in place management and governance structures which enable innovation.  According to the survey, companies tend to focus on product and service innovation, NOT breakthrough or  institutional innovation.

Again from the survey:

Top managers and other executives agree the the more important drivers of innovation are culture and people -- and that companies face significant challenges with both

This is another area for concern because as we all know, culture is a tough nut to crack.  Its so difficult to change because its coded in the DNA of the organization.  So if you work at an organization that doesn't have a culture that (1) values innovation and (2) places governance, budget and resources around innovation - not that it never will but it may be a cold day in hell before Innovation becomes mainstream.  Further, many top managers agree that corporate policy actually tends to offer limited incentives to innovation or limits it by placing an innovation team in a risk averse organization or business unit or having no plan to deal with failure other than to junk the team and start over.  Some say this is a talent issue, other execs say its a cultural issue.  The answer is "yes."

Another key point made by the survey is that many companies seem to "isolate innovation projects within business units, even when they see bigger opportunities."  Don't do this!!!  Don't isolate your innovation teams.  Your innovation teams should be allowed to embed in multiple functional groups, be encouraged to experiment and fail, experiment and succeed and ensure innovation has both formal and informal ways to express itself and influence multiple lines of business.

I am not surprised by any of these findings. I'm not surprised that many large companies face challenges in the innovation arena. And that only a small percentage of organizations have "figured it out. "   According to McKinsey,

The key organizational difference is the use of innovation related metrics in performance reviews.... only 29 percent of all companies include these metrics in reviews of C-level executives and business unit heads... whereas... 47 percent do so at organizations where innovation is a top priority and 50 percent at organizations where executive are confident in their innovation decisions.

Talking the talk is not enough these days.  If companies say they use innovation to drive performance, you should be seeing the metrics around innovation being put in place, you should see reliance on and corporate reporting of customer satisfaction or net promotion and you should be seeing talent and organizational shifts to embrace and drive innovation.  If you don't, then its all just lipstick on a bulldog.

Is Less email more?

The Journal (publicly available piece) had an article today on a re-emerging trend - limiting employee access to email on Fridays and weekends:

A growing number of employers, including U.S. Cellular, Deloitte & Touche and Intel, are imposing or trying out "no email" Fridays or weekends. While the bans typically allow emailing clients and customers or responding to urgent matters, the normal flow of routine internal email is halted. Violators are hit with token fines, or just called out by the boss.

The limits aim to encourage more face-to-face and phone contact with customers and co-workers, raise productivity or just give employees a reprieve from the ever-rising email tide. Emails sent by individual corporate users are projected to increase 27% this year, to an average of 47 a day, up from 37 in 2006, says Radicati Group, a Palo Alto, Calif., research and consulting firm. And one-third of users feel stressed by heavy email volume, according to a 2007 study of 177 people by the University of Glasgow and Paisley University in Scotland. Many check email as often as 30 to 40 times an hour, the study showed.

Its an old new idea again.  Back in 1996, I was interviewed by the BBC or The Guardian (can't remember, nor can I for the life of me find the original story online - if any one can, please forward) about CA's policy of shutting down email for an hour in the morning and an hour in the afternoon to boost productivity and interpersonal contact.  Here's the only reference I could find.

From what I remember, and remember this is '96 so email was still relatively new, relatively... it was a good policy while it lasted.  It did promote more face to face meetings and in person social networking... but as the business became more reliant on email for communication with customers and partners (although one could make the argument that CA was never reliant on partners let alone customers -- Sorry Charlie) the business retired the policy and was never heard of again. 

I'd say that it was one of the smarter things Charles Wang did, although I don't think there was any altruism behind the decision. It was purely to drive the business - no reprieve from the email tide - at that point email was more a Great Lake than an ocean. So the question is, is less email more?  I for one think so. I spend so much time (calculate about 20 minutes per email,  reviewing, thinking about and answering a given message that it feels like I am paid to answer email at times -- at any one time I have about 130 unread messages) that I would love to be able to get away from it.. .do more phone and in person conversations.

What say you?
 

Balancing Action v. Analysis

I was reading this post over at grokdotcom on the balance between using executive gunslingers to solve problems vs. internally asking the hard strategic questions and working on the answers before taking action, even though its ACTION we love and want...especially us North American based executives... forgive the generalization but most NA based companies I have had the pleasure of working with, have the "say... that's a good idea, lets act on it" approach to business. 

Einstein's quote from the grokdotcom post succinctly encapsulates how I view SAP's approach to business:

If I were given one hour to save the planet, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it.

While the company loves action and appreciates the fulfillment of execution, it also appreciates the value of precise analysis around the problem before moving into execution.  Since Einstein is from that European neck of the woods, I wonder how much of his attitude (and ours) is intrinsic to his brilliance or the social milieu he was brought up in?

Wired: MS Frowns on iPod use

Hide Your ipod: Here comes Bill... seems the MS Execs are none to happy with the explosion of iPods on the MS campus