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!

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?

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.