Thanks to Himanshu for a great post!
To start with, I loved his comment:
"So when I am hit with the words - sustained peak performance - I am truly and properly hit"!
Absolutely delicious sense of humor!
But then he went ahead and gave us some profound advice on “increasing total performance”: Synchronize Recruitment – Have Vision – Operational Excellence and capping it up with Innovation!
Slightly before that he did in bring an element of tragedy:
“And this way, the fulcrum of the whole setup, the individual is broken. And the only reason it is broken is because of a lack synchronization between elements.”
I think this is absolutely fabulous – starting with Humor, suddenly “peaking” with Tragedy and finally hitting the nail on the head with profound Full Blown Expression on nuts and bolts of enhancing performance! With the overall theme of an “Uneducated Take”, I think this is exemplary expression, beautifully entwined with Dramatics!
I love this!
Of course, I have to fulfill my duty and deal with the apparent “anti-individual” elements in the word “Performance”.
So, for the record, “performance”, especially “peak performance”, defeats its purpose if there is a COMPULSION about it.
For Peak Performance to work, ABSOLUTE CHOICE is needed, with COMPLETE FREEDOM!
Now, before this is misunderstood, let me clarify that CONSTRAINTS are likely to be there in a corporate set-up. But, the individual has to simply drop those constraints (in his mind, at least, to start with) and TRANSCEND the environment.
A Peak Performer CHOOSES to be COMPLETELY FOCUSSED on an “engagement” of his choice irrespective of circumstances. The limitations imposed by the environment including the team and organization does not matter (sports like soccer and cricket are "easy" illustrations of peak performing individuals).
Look back and see your “best performances” – you might have had amazing successes working under “project deadlines” but probably the most exotic performances were those that “produced” maximum output EFFORTLESSLY! More than “doing” anything, you were in a FLOW!
Allow me to quote Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (1990 book, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience) who once described flow as:
“Being completely involved in an activity for its own sake. The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost.”
Friday, November 10, 2006
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
An Uneducated of the title of this Blog
Sustained Peak Performance for Individuals, Teams and organizations!
Let us start our analysis from the middle of the sentence. At the centre of it all is an individual, me. Poor I, unfortunately, think of myself as an individual and not a part of asynchronizedd whole. So when I am hit with the words - sustained peak performance - I am truly and properly hit. What does sustained mean? Isn't it only human to take breaks? What does peak mean? If I am running at my maximum, I'll burn out in a day and my total output will be much lesser than if I had gone slow and continued to work for years. And what does performance mean? Is it doing my job? Something more than that? What about the reduction in my home performance because of my increase in office performance? Or the reduction in my health performance because of my effort to keep up my office and home performance? Oh! I think I am just a good for nothing, cribbing about these things. Everyone else seems to be taking up this slogan and being really upbeat about it. There must be something wrong with me.
And this way, the fulcrum of the whole setup, the individual is broken. And the only reason it is broken is because of a lack synchronization between elements.
Let us be very clear about this. None of the words of Sustained Peak Performance mean anything by themselves. The whole idea is maximize the overall output. And that cannot be achieved by achieving the local optima. Let us take the example of a woodcutter. The woodcutter's peak speed is 10 trees in a day. So do we want him to cut trees at that rate? No, because the day he cuts 12 trees, he falls sick for next two days and does not cut any, so we basically get 12 trees in 3 days, or 4 trees per day. Plus we have to pay for his medical expenses. So should we be happy with the 6 trees that he is cutting per day, every day? Again a No. Because then we are not getting the best out of our resource. There are several things we can do, and most of the more educated articles on this blog will detail out these aspect in much clearer terms. But here are some uneducated thoughts.
First, form a team. Get some more woodcutters and form a plan for them to work together in a coordinated fashion. The first thing that will happen - the overall unpredictability of the team will go down. One woodcutter falling sick will not stop the work. The actions that we have taken here are team formation and team coordination. Then, we can find individual motivational strategies. Every individual woodcutter (or at least some of them) would stretch themselves just a bit, cutting 7 trees a day. We can find team motivation strategies, where two woodcutters cutting trees while talking to each other will not get tired will they cut 8 trees a day. We can get very individual to work at his peak for three quarters of a day and cut 9 trees, and then rest for the rest of the day and proper planning and scheduling of the work will mean that one person or the other will be working throughout the day.
Several ways to increase the total performance of the individual and the team, but not enough. Cutting a few trees with a team of woodcutters will not make a succesful organization. For one, organization is much bigger than one team. For my wood-cuting organization to perform at its peak, for example,synchronization between its recruitment and operations departments have to be perfect for the right amount of people to be available when the work starts every morning.
More importantly, organizations needs to have a Vision. An Organization needs to know very clearly the purpose of its existence, and the direction it wishes to take to achieve that purpose. Then it needs to be good at what it is doing, it needs to do all the right things and in the right ways. In other words, it needs Operational Excellence. All this we have described. But is that enough? No! What we need to top it all is to find new ways of enabling each woodcutter to cut more trees per day, we need to find new ways for the groups of woodcutters to work better together, we need to find new woods to cut and new people to buy those woods. In Jargon terms, we need Innovation, at individual, team and organizational levels.
These are just some of the things that come to this illiterate mind. The other posts in this blog attempt to give us better ideas on how to achieve all this.
There's another way in which I can express what I want here. In my organization, what I want is that every individual woodcutter to cut the maximum number of trees that he can cut every day, I want every team to boost every individual's performance and to collectively deliver more than the total on individuals. In the end, I want all the teams to coordinate and assist with each other to enable smooth running of every unit. And I want to use every means possible to keep on increasing the output of each individual, each team and the organization. Last but not the least, I want my organization to continue to operate at its best for ever, and for that, I want to understand the role of my organization in the society and how I can fit without causing a disturbance which negatively impacts either an individual, a team or an organization.
Lets see how this blog gives us pointers to these things.
In the end, a small note. Hope all this makes sense.
Let us start our analysis from the middle of the sentence. At the centre of it all is an individual, me. Poor I, unfortunately, think of myself as an individual and not a part of asynchronizedd whole. So when I am hit with the words - sustained peak performance - I am truly and properly hit. What does sustained mean? Isn't it only human to take breaks? What does peak mean? If I am running at my maximum, I'll burn out in a day and my total output will be much lesser than if I had gone slow and continued to work for years. And what does performance mean? Is it doing my job? Something more than that? What about the reduction in my home performance because of my increase in office performance? Or the reduction in my health performance because of my effort to keep up my office and home performance? Oh! I think I am just a good for nothing, cribbing about these things. Everyone else seems to be taking up this slogan and being really upbeat about it. There must be something wrong with me.
And this way, the fulcrum of the whole setup, the individual is broken. And the only reason it is broken is because of a lack synchronization between elements.
Let us be very clear about this. None of the words of Sustained Peak Performance mean anything by themselves. The whole idea is maximize the overall output. And that cannot be achieved by achieving the local optima. Let us take the example of a woodcutter. The woodcutter's peak speed is 10 trees in a day. So do we want him to cut trees at that rate? No, because the day he cuts 12 trees, he falls sick for next two days and does not cut any, so we basically get 12 trees in 3 days, or 4 trees per day. Plus we have to pay for his medical expenses. So should we be happy with the 6 trees that he is cutting per day, every day? Again a No. Because then we are not getting the best out of our resource. There are several things we can do, and most of the more educated articles on this blog will detail out these aspect in much clearer terms. But here are some uneducated thoughts.
First, form a team. Get some more woodcutters and form a plan for them to work together in a coordinated fashion. The first thing that will happen - the overall unpredictability of the team will go down. One woodcutter falling sick will not stop the work. The actions that we have taken here are team formation and team coordination. Then, we can find individual motivational strategies. Every individual woodcutter (or at least some of them) would stretch themselves just a bit, cutting 7 trees a day. We can find team motivation strategies, where two woodcutters cutting trees while talking to each other will not get tired will they cut 8 trees a day. We can get very individual to work at his peak for three quarters of a day and cut 9 trees, and then rest for the rest of the day and proper planning and scheduling of the work will mean that one person or the other will be working throughout the day.
Several ways to increase the total performance of the individual and the team, but not enough. Cutting a few trees with a team of woodcutters will not make a succesful organization. For one, organization is much bigger than one team. For my wood-cuting organization to perform at its peak, for example,synchronization between its recruitment and operations departments have to be perfect for the right amount of people to be available when the work starts every morning.
More importantly, organizations needs to have a Vision. An Organization needs to know very clearly the purpose of its existence, and the direction it wishes to take to achieve that purpose. Then it needs to be good at what it is doing, it needs to do all the right things and in the right ways. In other words, it needs Operational Excellence. All this we have described. But is that enough? No! What we need to top it all is to find new ways of enabling each woodcutter to cut more trees per day, we need to find new ways for the groups of woodcutters to work better together, we need to find new woods to cut and new people to buy those woods. In Jargon terms, we need Innovation, at individual, team and organizational levels.
These are just some of the things that come to this illiterate mind. The other posts in this blog attempt to give us better ideas on how to achieve all this.
There's another way in which I can express what I want here. In my organization, what I want is that every individual woodcutter to cut the maximum number of trees that he can cut every day, I want every team to boost every individual's performance and to collectively deliver more than the total on individuals. In the end, I want all the teams to coordinate and assist with each other to enable smooth running of every unit. And I want to use every means possible to keep on increasing the output of each individual, each team and the organization. Last but not the least, I want my organization to continue to operate at its best for ever, and for that, I want to understand the role of my organization in the society and how I can fit without causing a disturbance which negatively impacts either an individual, a team or an organization.
Lets see how this blog gives us pointers to these things.
In the end, a small note. Hope all this makes sense.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Scaling up for Global Excellence - 2
Contd. from previous post:
Rajiv Bajaj, MD, Bajaj Auto, was the curiousity factor in the group as he usually does not attend such sessions. He turned-up at 8AM much before everyone else. He was wearing his factory uniform (at the Taj Palace Hotel!). When someone asked, he said, "I don't have a suit!".
When his turn came to present, he said, "'I shall not give any business projections or discuss management principles. I will talk about how we transformed our company by strengthening the firm from inside".
His presentation was titled "Inside Out" and he started with the quote:
Those who look OUTSIDE dream,
Those who look INSIDE awaken.
~Carl Jung
He went on to share how Professor S Yamaguchi guided him and his firm in the early 1990s. An interesting quote from the professor was:
Business starts when the customer say NO!
Professor S Yamaguchi is a TPM (Total Productive Maintenance) expert.
To deal with Bajaj Auto's "problems" at that point of time, they simply followed Yamaguchi's advice of "Do! Do! Do!" and from 1990-1995 they "Did what was Doable".
From 1995 onwards they did "What was UNEXPECTED" and unleashed the "Pulsar" by the turn of the century!
To those who are new to TPM, it has some similarities with Total Quality Management (TQM) and both share tools like empowerment, benchmarking and documentation.
TPM programs are aimed at maximizing production effectiveness by engaging people at all organizational levels and functions and simultaneously increasing employee morale and job satisfaction.
Equipment effectiveness is maximized by minimising unplanned stoppages. Maintenance is carried out to a pre-planned schedule, rather than waiting for the equipment to break down.
It targets zero downtime of machinery/equipment, zero defects and zero accidents by the pro-active identification of potential problems.
Rajiv Bajaj, MD, Bajaj Auto, was the curiousity factor in the group as he usually does not attend such sessions. He turned-up at 8AM much before everyone else. He was wearing his factory uniform (at the Taj Palace Hotel!). When someone asked, he said, "I don't have a suit!".
When his turn came to present, he said, "'I shall not give any business projections or discuss management principles. I will talk about how we transformed our company by strengthening the firm from inside".
His presentation was titled "Inside Out" and he started with the quote:
Those who look OUTSIDE dream,
Those who look INSIDE awaken.
~Carl Jung
He went on to share how Professor S Yamaguchi guided him and his firm in the early 1990s. An interesting quote from the professor was:
Business starts when the customer say NO!
Professor S Yamaguchi is a TPM (Total Productive Maintenance) expert.
To deal with Bajaj Auto's "problems" at that point of time, they simply followed Yamaguchi's advice of "Do! Do! Do!" and from 1990-1995 they "Did what was Doable".
From 1995 onwards they did "What was UNEXPECTED" and unleashed the "Pulsar" by the turn of the century!
To those who are new to TPM, it has some similarities with Total Quality Management (TQM) and both share tools like empowerment, benchmarking and documentation.
TPM programs are aimed at maximizing production effectiveness by engaging people at all organizational levels and functions and simultaneously increasing employee morale and job satisfaction.
Equipment effectiveness is maximized by minimising unplanned stoppages. Maintenance is carried out to a pre-planned schedule, rather than waiting for the equipment to break down.
It targets zero downtime of machinery/equipment, zero defects and zero accidents by the pro-active identification of potential problems.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Scaling up for Global Excellence - 1
Theme: Scaling up for Global Excellence
Location: September 8, 2006,Taj Palace Hotel, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi
Presentations: By Sunil Bharti Mittal (Group MD, Bharti Enterprises), Rajiv Bajaj (MD, Bajaj Auto) and Anant Talaulicar (MD, Tata Cummins and CMD, Cummins India Ltd.).
Event: 46th Annual Session of the ACMA (Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India)
Kick-Off: A K Taneja, President, ACMA kicked-off (there was no football, however) the proceedings with some "India Shining" statistics (like 8% growth, demographic profile of 50%+ below 25 years of age, 300,000+ engineers being churned out, etc) and saw huge potential for growth in the Automotive industry - we have only about 7 passenger vehicles per THOUSAND persons, one of the LOWEST in the world, even lower than Thailand and Pakistan.
Due to severe cost pressure, the global OEMs and large tier 1 players in USA, Europe, etc are increasingly looking at emerging economies such as Brazil, East Europe, ASEAN, China and India for sourcing of cost competitive components. India is one of the most attractive destinations and the industry is looking at a growth rate of 20-30% per year.
So, to reach about USD 40-50 billion by 2015, Automotive Component Manufacturers in India face the challenges of scaling up. What are some of the challenges?
1. The challenge of attracting and retaining talent. Skilled manpower is the OXYGEN of this industry and Talent Transformation is the goal!
2. The challenge of managing Partnerships and Alliances. Collaboration! Collaboration! Collaboration!
3. The challenge of Implementation. Relentless flawless execution! Systems, Procedures, and Internal Processes!
4. The challenge of Free Trade Agreements. Trade/Compete with China!
So, what "mantras" did señors Sunil Bharti Mittal , Rajiv Bajaj and Anant Talaulicar throw back at the Automotive Component Manufacturers? Watch the space.
Location: September 8, 2006,Taj Palace Hotel, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi
Presentations: By Sunil Bharti Mittal (Group MD, Bharti Enterprises), Rajiv Bajaj (MD, Bajaj Auto) and Anant Talaulicar (MD, Tata Cummins and CMD, Cummins India Ltd.).
Event: 46th Annual Session of the ACMA (Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India)
Kick-Off: A K Taneja, President, ACMA kicked-off (there was no football, however) the proceedings with some "India Shining" statistics (like 8% growth, demographic profile of 50%+ below 25 years of age, 300,000+ engineers being churned out, etc) and saw huge potential for growth in the Automotive industry - we have only about 7 passenger vehicles per THOUSAND persons, one of the LOWEST in the world, even lower than Thailand and Pakistan.
Due to severe cost pressure, the global OEMs and large tier 1 players in USA, Europe, etc are increasingly looking at emerging economies such as Brazil, East Europe, ASEAN, China and India for sourcing of cost competitive components. India is one of the most attractive destinations and the industry is looking at a growth rate of 20-30% per year.
So, to reach about USD 40-50 billion by 2015, Automotive Component Manufacturers in India face the challenges of scaling up. What are some of the challenges?
1. The challenge of attracting and retaining talent. Skilled manpower is the OXYGEN of this industry and Talent Transformation is the goal!
2. The challenge of managing Partnerships and Alliances. Collaboration! Collaboration! Collaboration!
3. The challenge of Implementation. Relentless flawless execution! Systems, Procedures, and Internal Processes!
4. The challenge of Free Trade Agreements. Trade/Compete with China!
So, what "mantras" did señors Sunil Bharti Mittal , Rajiv Bajaj and Anant Talaulicar throw back at the Automotive Component Manufacturers? Watch the space.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Continuous Unlearning and Re-invention
"From Intuition to Institution", a book on the history of INSEAD (campuses in Singapore and France), labels its journey over four decades as a tale of continual re-invention.
Starting from 1957 as an entrepreneurial venture with modest academic credentials it now ranks itself with the best business schools and has achieved this without university or government support. This journey has required a constant balancing act between contradictory challenges that is pervasive in modern organizations: between continuity and change, between strategic planning and opportunism, between ambitions and financial constraints, between short term gain and long term investment, and so on.
“Continual Re-invention” is a powerful theme, which successful organizations “continually” adopt, yet it is easier said than done. Re-invention requires a re-look at the context, re-definition of mission and vision and an altogether different perspective to run and compete. One of measures of success in today’s world is NOT on “how much do you know” but “how quickly can you learn”. So, “Continuous Learning” becomes a necessary part and with paradigms frequently turning up-side down, it is smarter to be ready for “Continuous Unlearning”.
For example, one of the paradigm shifts in software product development is the Agile methodology: classic software development identifies “accurate requirement specifications” as one of the critical measures of success, and now the Agile methodology says “do not wait for requirements to be complete, start coding because a working software is the primary measure of progress”. Although Agile is used by many world-class software vendors, it is still not universally accepted and Agile remains a hotly debated topic. So, "Upside-down" paradigm shifts are difficult to "sell" and thus, “Collaborative Unlearning”, which is absolutely necessary to foster innovation in organizations, is a challenge which is difficult to address.
In a Roffey Park's research report (also included in “Successful Innovation: How to Encourage and Shape Profitable Ideas” by Michel Syrett and Jean Lammiman), the challenge of innovation was seen to be that not enough of the ideas on the ground were picked up and properly exploited. Rather these ideas are like 'diamonds in the dust' - hidden beneath the surface unless managers at all levels search them out, recognize their value and - to take the analogy further - arrange to have them expertly cut and polished. The research recommends five key roles as necessary to successful idea development:
1. Spark (someone who ‘sparks’ the idea, original thinker);
2. Sponsor (someone who promotes the idea and keeps it “live”);
3. Shaper (someone who makes the idea “real” by finding on practical ways to implement the idea);
4. Sounding board (Outside expert, whose objectivity and broader knowledge helps validate the idea).
5. Specialist (someone, whose specialist skills help shape the ideas towards a specific implementation.)
Now, that looks like a grounded process on which Continuous Innovations can be fostered!
Starting from 1957 as an entrepreneurial venture with modest academic credentials it now ranks itself with the best business schools and has achieved this without university or government support. This journey has required a constant balancing act between contradictory challenges that is pervasive in modern organizations: between continuity and change, between strategic planning and opportunism, between ambitions and financial constraints, between short term gain and long term investment, and so on.
“Continual Re-invention” is a powerful theme, which successful organizations “continually” adopt, yet it is easier said than done. Re-invention requires a re-look at the context, re-definition of mission and vision and an altogether different perspective to run and compete. One of measures of success in today’s world is NOT on “how much do you know” but “how quickly can you learn”. So, “Continuous Learning” becomes a necessary part and with paradigms frequently turning up-side down, it is smarter to be ready for “Continuous Unlearning”.
For example, one of the paradigm shifts in software product development is the Agile methodology: classic software development identifies “accurate requirement specifications” as one of the critical measures of success, and now the Agile methodology says “do not wait for requirements to be complete, start coding because a working software is the primary measure of progress”. Although Agile is used by many world-class software vendors, it is still not universally accepted and Agile remains a hotly debated topic. So, "Upside-down" paradigm shifts are difficult to "sell" and thus, “Collaborative Unlearning”, which is absolutely necessary to foster innovation in organizations, is a challenge which is difficult to address.
In a Roffey Park's research report (also included in “Successful Innovation: How to Encourage and Shape Profitable Ideas” by Michel Syrett and Jean Lammiman), the challenge of innovation was seen to be that not enough of the ideas on the ground were picked up and properly exploited. Rather these ideas are like 'diamonds in the dust' - hidden beneath the surface unless managers at all levels search them out, recognize their value and - to take the analogy further - arrange to have them expertly cut and polished. The research recommends five key roles as necessary to successful idea development:
1. Spark (someone who ‘sparks’ the idea, original thinker);
2. Sponsor (someone who promotes the idea and keeps it “live”);
3. Shaper (someone who makes the idea “real” by finding on practical ways to implement the idea);
4. Sounding board (Outside expert, whose objectivity and broader knowledge helps validate the idea).
5. Specialist (someone, whose specialist skills help shape the ideas towards a specific implementation.)
Now, that looks like a grounded process on which Continuous Innovations can be fostered!
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Enlightened Organizations!
Enlightened Organizations!
Tom Morris, in his book, "If Aristotle Ran General Motors", has presented a case for "a new ethics in business and for a workplace where openness and Integrity are the rule rather than the exception".
He goes further and shows that "any company that is serious about attaining true excellence must adhere to four timeless virtues first identified by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago: Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and Unity".
Enlightened Organizations! Anyone?
Tom Morris, in his book, "If Aristotle Ran General Motors", has presented a case for "a new ethics in business and for a workplace where openness and Integrity are the rule rather than the exception".
He goes further and shows that "any company that is serious about attaining true excellence must adhere to four timeless virtues first identified by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago: Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and Unity".
Enlightened Organizations! Anyone?
Monday, June 05, 2006
Institutionalizing Innovation – A Paradox?
Institutionalizing Innovation – A Paradox?
Innovation involves “Out-of-Box” thinking and institutionalizing innovation is a contradiction of sorts. How does one organize creativity in “process-perfect” (read Quality certified) organizations, inevitable conflict-ridden workplaces and a dynamically changing chaotic market-place?
A widely-held belief is that Creativity is forte of lonely geniuses and that it is “in-born”. Peter Drucker is one of the pioneers who said that innovation could presented as a discipline, capable of being learned and capable of being practiced. He states in his book “Innovation and Entrepreneurship”:
Systematic innovation consists in the purposeful and organized search for changes, and in the systematic analysis of the opportunities such changes might offer for economic or social innovation.
The challenge in organizations is to foster un-hindered creativity across all levels of organization and yet have a structure in place to channel the ideas systematically into usefulness.
Innovation is the introduction of new ideas which are useful. In the marketplace, innovation is the successful exploitation of new ideas and, hence, successful commercialization is the ultimate goal. Innovation always brings a significant difference to the situation at hand and creating or adding “value” is an essential element.
Organizational innovation initiatives are usually aimed at improving efficiency, effectiveness or competitive advantage. Thus, the application of new ideas could (a) result in an improvement in an existing product, service or process and/or (b) result in an entirely new product, service or process.
The bigger challenge is to be ready for the next "unknown" external threat to business. It is not enough for organizations attempt to anticipate the next “Disruptive Innovation” in the market (and grope in the dark, waiting to get hit). Organizations should themselves take initiative to unleash the next series of “Disruptive Technologies” into the market.
Finally, in the commercialization stage, the trap to avoid is the “Early Mover” principle. A highly successful Innovation may not equate to Commercial Success when the “Imitators” rush in at “The Right Moment” in the market with “deep pocket” marketing and distribution.
Innovation involves “Out-of-Box” thinking and institutionalizing innovation is a contradiction of sorts. How does one organize creativity in “process-perfect” (read Quality certified) organizations, inevitable conflict-ridden workplaces and a dynamically changing chaotic market-place?
A widely-held belief is that Creativity is forte of lonely geniuses and that it is “in-born”. Peter Drucker is one of the pioneers who said that innovation could presented as a discipline, capable of being learned and capable of being practiced. He states in his book “Innovation and Entrepreneurship”:
Systematic innovation consists in the purposeful and organized search for changes, and in the systematic analysis of the opportunities such changes might offer for economic or social innovation.
The challenge in organizations is to foster un-hindered creativity across all levels of organization and yet have a structure in place to channel the ideas systematically into usefulness.
Innovation is the introduction of new ideas which are useful. In the marketplace, innovation is the successful exploitation of new ideas and, hence, successful commercialization is the ultimate goal. Innovation always brings a significant difference to the situation at hand and creating or adding “value” is an essential element.
Organizational innovation initiatives are usually aimed at improving efficiency, effectiveness or competitive advantage. Thus, the application of new ideas could (a) result in an improvement in an existing product, service or process and/or (b) result in an entirely new product, service or process.
The bigger challenge is to be ready for the next "unknown" external threat to business. It is not enough for organizations attempt to anticipate the next “Disruptive Innovation” in the market (and grope in the dark, waiting to get hit). Organizations should themselves take initiative to unleash the next series of “Disruptive Technologies” into the market.
Finally, in the commercialization stage, the trap to avoid is the “Early Mover” principle. A highly successful Innovation may not equate to Commercial Success when the “Imitators” rush in at “The Right Moment” in the market with “deep pocket” marketing and distribution.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Ideation, Idea Databases and Idea Management
Ideation, Idea Databases and Idea Management
Various thought methods are available to us to go beyond our current levels of thinking and the sum total wisdom being used consciously (or subconsciously) at a given moment. The principles of Lateral Thinking allow us to set the context for a free (un-hindered) flow of ideas to the problem at hand.
With this “free” context, we can easily set-up a system to continuously build a haystack of ideas. This process of forming and relating ideas is called IDEATION and it usually leads to an IDEA DATABASE for the specific problem at hand. And, of course, there are many “ready” databases on the internet. For example:
www.creativitypool.com could be a starting place to browse for ideas and you could submit your own ideas and be rewarded for brilliant entries.
www.trendwatching.com scans the globe for “the most promising consumer trends, insights and related hands-on business ideas”. They rely on a network of 8,000+ spotters in more than 70 countries worldwide.
With a large number of people working on the same problem, there arises the need to “institutionalize” systematic recording, sharing, and evaluation of ideas – the entire process is called “Idea Management”. Commercial Ideation tools like “Ideation Brainstorming” by Ideationtriz are available in the market.
Another player is Imaginatik who are one of the pioneers of Idea Management “as a specialized application of Knowledge Management principles to harness the collective innovation potential of companies”. They use the idea of concept of “Idea Richness” - the extent to which an idea is described so that it is understandable to others, and avoids the need for most follow-on questions.
The parameters of Idea Richness are - Understandability, Completeness (scope of problem covered and how detailed), Questioning (How much extra work?), and Longevity (How easy is it for some to recall the ideas after a long period of time?) and Intuitive Fit (How evident is the solution?).
So much so for quality of ideas. What about quantity? How many is too many? The Economist estimated that an enterprise has to start with 3000 bright ideas if it has come up with 100 worthwhile projects, which in turn will be winnowed down to four development programs for new products.
So, “Never say Never” whenever an “insert” operation is requested into an idea database!
Various thought methods are available to us to go beyond our current levels of thinking and the sum total wisdom being used consciously (or subconsciously) at a given moment. The principles of Lateral Thinking allow us to set the context for a free (un-hindered) flow of ideas to the problem at hand.
With this “free” context, we can easily set-up a system to continuously build a haystack of ideas. This process of forming and relating ideas is called IDEATION and it usually leads to an IDEA DATABASE for the specific problem at hand. And, of course, there are many “ready” databases on the internet. For example:
www.creativitypool.com could be a starting place to browse for ideas and you could submit your own ideas and be rewarded for brilliant entries.
www.trendwatching.com scans the globe for “the most promising consumer trends, insights and related hands-on business ideas”. They rely on a network of 8,000+ spotters in more than 70 countries worldwide.
With a large number of people working on the same problem, there arises the need to “institutionalize” systematic recording, sharing, and evaluation of ideas – the entire process is called “Idea Management”. Commercial Ideation tools like “Ideation Brainstorming” by Ideationtriz are available in the market.
Another player is Imaginatik who are one of the pioneers of Idea Management “as a specialized application of Knowledge Management principles to harness the collective innovation potential of companies”. They use the idea of concept of “Idea Richness” - the extent to which an idea is described so that it is understandable to others, and avoids the need for most follow-on questions.
The parameters of Idea Richness are - Understandability, Completeness (scope of problem covered and how detailed), Questioning (How much extra work?), and Longevity (How easy is it for some to recall the ideas after a long period of time?) and Intuitive Fit (How evident is the solution?).
So much so for quality of ideas. What about quantity? How many is too many? The Economist estimated that an enterprise has to start with 3000 bright ideas if it has come up with 100 worthwhile projects, which in turn will be winnowed down to four development programs for new products.
So, “Never say Never” whenever an “insert” operation is requested into an idea database!
Monday, May 08, 2006
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Lateral Thinking
Albert Einstein famously said that “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”.
So, what are tools available to us to go beyond our current levels of thinking and the sum total wisdom being used consciously (or subconsciously) at a given moment?
One such tool ‘Lateral Thinking’ was pioneered in 1967 by Edward de Bono, a Maltese psychologist, physician, and writer. Bono said that the (usual) concept of LOGICAL thinking is SELECTION and this is brought about by the processes of ACCEPTANCE and REJECTION.
Now, we can easily see that the mind's usual REJECTION of ideas based on already known knowledge and wisdom would most often limit a mind to move around endlessly in a very limited domain.
The usual Logical Reasoning, it seems, has no access to “What the mind does not even know that it does not know”.
Bono explains that the concept of LATERAL thinking is INSIGHT RESTRUCTURING and this is brought about through the REARRANGEMENT OF INFORMATION.
REARRANGEMENT is the BASIS of LATERAL thinking and the mind is NOT trapped by its usual YES or NO to ideas.
Instead of saying "Yes" or "No", Bono invites us to say "Po"! The term PO is derived from Provocative operation. The concept allows us to continue thinking forward to a new place in an unencumbered fashion where new ideas may be continually produced.
So, as new ideas keep pouring in from diverse angles (in a typical brainstorming session) they are not evaluated immediately. Every idea is simply recorded without any judgments.
Then the process of evaluating the transcripts of the Brainstorming session at a later meeting is the first access to “breakthrough” insights into the problem being considered.
So, what are tools available to us to go beyond our current levels of thinking and the sum total wisdom being used consciously (or subconsciously) at a given moment?
One such tool ‘Lateral Thinking’ was pioneered in 1967 by Edward de Bono, a Maltese psychologist, physician, and writer. Bono said that the (usual) concept of LOGICAL thinking is SELECTION and this is brought about by the processes of ACCEPTANCE and REJECTION.
Now, we can easily see that the mind's usual REJECTION of ideas based on already known knowledge and wisdom would most often limit a mind to move around endlessly in a very limited domain.
The usual Logical Reasoning, it seems, has no access to “What the mind does not even know that it does not know”.
Bono explains that the concept of LATERAL thinking is INSIGHT RESTRUCTURING and this is brought about through the REARRANGEMENT OF INFORMATION.
REARRANGEMENT is the BASIS of LATERAL thinking and the mind is NOT trapped by its usual YES or NO to ideas.
Instead of saying "Yes" or "No", Bono invites us to say "Po"! The term PO is derived from Provocative operation. The concept allows us to continue thinking forward to a new place in an unencumbered fashion where new ideas may be continually produced.
So, as new ideas keep pouring in from diverse angles (in a typical brainstorming session) they are not evaluated immediately. Every idea is simply recorded without any judgments.
Then the process of evaluating the transcripts of the Brainstorming session at a later meeting is the first access to “breakthrough” insights into the problem being considered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
View Amarendra Srivastava's profile