Innovation in Practice

Green Field Innovation

How should firms identify innovation opportunities and predict market potential at very early stages and in new areas (“green fields”) and ambiguous environments?  Here are three approaches:

1.  Find Innovation Adjacencies: 

Adjacent markets are an attractive way to grow.  Adjacent markets are not too far away from your core business in terms of channels, technology, price point, brand, etc..  To find them, I recommend The Big Picture framework developed by Professor Christie Nordhielm at The University of Michigan.  The Big Picture outlines four quadrants that completely define any market category. To find "green fields", consider each quadrant one at a time and imagine extending beyond the bounds of the category in some close by, adjacent way.  The key is to stretch, not leap beyond your inherent business model.  Ask yourself these questions:

• Quadrant 1 Adjacencies:  What substitute products are non-category consumers using to fulfill the need.  Where are they buying it?  What complementary products go along with these substitutes?
• Quadrant 2 Adjacencies:  What other products do your loyal customers buy, perhaps at the same price point or to fulfill the same or similar brand promise? 
• Quadrant 3 Adjacencies:  Why do multi-brand customers use several brands?  Is it time-dependent?  Situation-dependent?  Why does it vary?  What other products are used when the competitive brands are consumed?
• Quadrant 4 Adjacencies:  What other category of products does your competitor sell?  How do those fit into their product line?  How could they fit into yours?

Once you identify potential adjacencies, apply an innovation method to create new-to-the-world concepts. 

2.  Cooperate with the Competition: 

Co-opetition is an idea described by Barry Nalebuff  and Adam Brandenburger in their book, "Co-opetition."  It means cooperative competition - when industry participants behave in a way that benefits all.  They coopetate rather than compete.  The trick is to apply innovation templates to the Value Net model of co-opetition.  Here's how.  List the activities of each Value Net participant (Company, Supplier, Customer, Complementors, Competitor).  Rotate each specific company in the Value Net model so that each takes a new role (competitors become suppliers, suppliers become complementors, etc).  Use each template on the new list of activities, starting with Task Unification.  Using Function Follows Form, envision how the new role creates a "green field" market.

3.  Listen to the "Voices": 

Here are three less obvious sources of "green field" opportunity. 

• Voice of the Product:  Products have enormous amounts of information coded into them through years of design improvement.  A corporate innovation method such as S.I.T. lets you "interrogate" the product to find new, undiscovered market benefits.
• Voice of the Brand:  Brands also have information coded into them.  The key is to extract the information and data that contributes to the brand promise to see hidden assets and market potential.  For this I recommend the semantic search engine, Goldfire.
• Voice of Serendipity:  Many products are invented accidentally.  Serendipity led to the microwave oven, corn flakes, Teflon®, penicillin, fireworks, Viagra®, chocolate chip cookies, and the most famous of all accidents...the Post-it® note.  While serendipity is unpredictable, there is value if you can unlock its hidden secrets. 

Innovating to Compete

Innovating is a form of competitive behavior.  When we innovate, we compete with someone or something.  We innovate to survive. We innovate for glory.  We innovate to win.  Leaders of organizations need to understand and leverage this competitive aspect of innovation to embed it into the organization. 

Innovating to compete occurs at many levels:

• At the national level, governments compete with other nations for trade, economic power, and global political influence. 
• At the municipal level, cities compete aggressively to attract investment, firms, and employees to stimulate jobs and economic growth.
• At the industry level, competition among sectors is fierce.  Industries want to attract customers, investment, talent, and favorable government treatment.
• At the company level, firms want to be more competitive by differentiating themselves in the marketplace.
• At the business unit level, franchises compete with one another for budget resources and manpower.
• At the individual level, peer rivals compete with each other for promotion and bonuses.
• At the personal level, we compete with ourselves to achieve a new "personal best" when overcoming challenges.

Here are suggestions of what leaders can do to embrace competition and drive innovation:

Linking Innovation with Strategy

Innovation that is linked to strategy is seen as more realistic and supportable.  Innovating is efficient because you avoid creating ideas that are out of scope.  Firms struggle with this as Idris Mootee observed in his blog, Innovation Playground:

"The most amazing thing with strategic experience innovation is that it takes one kind of company and leadership to create the idea and another kind of company to scale it up and drive industry transformation and we see it in markets after market."

Andrew Hinton offered this insight on his blog, Inkblurt:

"We hear the words Strategy and Innovation thrown around a lot, and often we hear them said together. “We need an innovation strategy.” Or perhaps “We need a more innovative strategy” which, of course, is a different animal. But I don’t hear people questioning much exactly what we mean when we say these things. It’s as if we all agree already on what we mean by strategy and innovation, and that they just fit together automatically."

There are two approaches to linking innovation and strategy:  Strategy-Informs-Innovation and Innovation-Informs-Strategy.  Here is how:

Reinventing the Newspaper

Newspapers are dying.  Their business model is burning to the ground.  They cannot fend off the Internet and other threats despite their virtual monopoly and economies of scale in printing and distribution.  Advertisers are moving on.  Yet while traditional newsrooms are shrinking, journalism is thriving and the consumption of news is skyrocketing.  Why are newspapers shutting down?  As Clay Shirky describes it:

"If you want to know why newspapers are in such trouble, the most salient fact is this: Printing presses are terrifically expensive to set up and to run. This bit of economics, normal since Gutenberg, limits competition while creating positive returns to scale for the press owner, a happy pair of economic effects that feed on each other."

"With the old economics destroyed, organizational forms perfected for industrial production have to be replaced with structures optimized for digital data. It makes increasingly less sense even to talk about a publishing industry, because the core problem publishing solves — the incredible difficulty, complexity, and expense of making something available to the public — has stopped being a problem."

"Round and round this goes, with the people committed to saving newspapers demanding to know “If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” To which the answer is: Nothing. Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the internet just broke."

Perhaps it is not the newspaper model, per se, that needs replaced.  Perhaps it is the components of that model that need innovation: printing, distribution, and journalism.  Let's examine how.

Corporate Innovation Strategy Template

I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.

Rudyard Kipling (1902)

Here is a simple template to create your company's innovation strategy:

• WHAT:   
  
  • Determine what business lines are to be innovated.
  • Determine what products or services within those business lines need innovation.
  • Establish a portfolio model that compares innovation output from one business line to another.
  • Rank order business lines based on the strength of their innovation portfolio pipelines.

• WHY:    
  
  • Determine how much innovation is needed.  Use a tool like Map-the-Gap.
  • Tie innovation to a strategy framework such as The Big Picture. 
  • Focus innovation exercises to link directly to the strategy framework. 
  • Use the framework to identify market adjacencies.

• WHEN:  
  
  • Schedule innovation workshops at the front end of the business cycle to help determine what projects will get funding in the next budget cycle.
  • Schedule innovation workshops after the planning cycle to jump-start new initiatives for the upcoming year.

• HOW:    
  
  • Choose specific methods of innovation to be used based on efficacy and results.
  • Combine different methods to leverage the strengths of each.
  • Integrate the methods by using the output of one as inputs for the others.

• WHERE: 
  
  • Set aside space with the specific purpose of conducting innovation workshops.

• WHO:    
  
  • Form innovation "dream teams" to maximize the success of innovation efforts.
  • Schedule training on how to use innovation methods.
  • Examine the company's innovation culture to diagnose where it is weak.
  • Establish an innovation competency model.
  • Designate and empower commercial leaders to drive innovation efforts.

Innovation Dilemmas

Innovation creates dilemmas, and these dilemmas can either help or hinder your innovation effort.  Dilemmas arise when we confront natural tensions between two apparent opposite ideas or concepts.  In business we face these dilemmas all the time:  cost vs. quality, centralization vs. decentralization, stability vs. change, short term results vs. long term competitiveness.  Dilemmas are dynamic but inevitable.  They don't go away.  They must be managed over time. 

The key is to recognize the difference between dilemmas, which are not resolvable, and problems which are resolvable.  Problems differ from dilemmas in that they are decidable.  We have independent options to address problems usually through some fixed trade-off between options.  Problems can be solved, resolved, and decided – once and for all.  Natural tensions are not solved or decided.  They are ongoing.  Professors Josh Klayman and Jackie Gnepp address this in their course, "Implementing Innovation and Change" at the University of Chicago.  The course helps students recognize the difference between dilemmas and problems.  They learn strategies to help manage and balance these dilemmas over time.

Here are the innovation dilemmas (tensions) I observe in organizations:

Innovation at the U.S. Automakers

As some U.S. automakers face inevitable restructuring, the key questions are what should they become?  What is the best way to do it?  The answer depends on what battle they think they are fighting.  In simplest terms:  should they build better cars?  Build cars better?  Build cars?

Consider the battles U.S. automakers have fought against the Japanese and other automakers.  How has Detroit done in:  design?  quality? productivity? brand building?  Given the steady loss of market share and margin, they seem to be losing.  There are a variety of reasons, some of their own making and some not.

There is one battle worth winning more than the others - the battle of ideas.  U.S. automakers need to outperform the competition in one definitive way - systematically develop and deploy a steady, uninterrupted stream of novel ideas and inventions across all aspects of their business.  At the risk of falling deep into the "easier-said-than-done" category, I offer my blueprint for change for U.S. automakers: reframe, retrain, and redeploy...a model based on my own experience.

Innovation Adjacencies

Finding adjacent market spaces is an attractive way to grow.  Adjacent markets are not too far away from your core business in terms of channels, technology, price point, brand, etc.  Adjacent means: lying near, neighboring, having a common border, touchable.  Although chasing adjacencies can be distracting, it is a much easier to sell internally.  Adjacencies seem more achievable than far out, ethereal white space opportunities.

Adjacent markets are even more appealing when you apply a systematic innovation method to it.  Giving yourself the gift of novelty in a new market space right next to your own seems like the best of both worlds.  The trick is finding the right adjacencies.

The starting point for thinking about adjacencies is to ask yourself, "Adjacent to what?"  It is much harder to find adjacent spaces when you don't have a clear understanding of your existing spaces.  For this, I recommend a framework called The Big Picture developed by Professor Christie Nordhielm at The University of Michigan.  The Big Picture outlines four quadrants that, when properly constructed, completely define any market category.  Here is a visual of those quadrants.

The LAB: Monetizing Twitter with Attribute Dependency (February 2009)

Venture capitalists could increase the value of their investments by applying a corporate innovation method to those investments.  Take Twitter for example.  It just received its third round of funding - $35 million.  Yet it has no revenue, no business model...just the promise of such.  It is the perfect time to innovate. 

I decided to take the challenge to create new concepts for the Twitter platform that have the potential to earn money.  Others are chasing this, too, including the Twitter management team.  It reminds me of the early days of Amazon when many (including me) wondered if the company would turn a profit.  The difference between Twitter and Amazon is an important one.  Amazon started with a business model in mind.  From there, it had to achieve economies of scale.  Twitter started with none.  Economies of scale do not matter until it can define a viable business model.

Let's see how innovation can help.

I used the Attribute Dependency template of Systematic Inventive Thinking, a method of innovation that works like no other I have found.  Attribute Dependency (or AD for short) differs from the other templates in that it uses attributes (variables) of the situation rather than components.  It is a powerful tool and more challenging than the others in some respects.  It yields amazing results.  You start with an attribute list, then construct a 2 x 2 matrix of these, pairing each against the others.  Each cell represents a potential dependency (or potential break in an existing dependency) that forms a Virtual Product.  Using Function Follows Form, we work backwards and envision a potential benefit or problem that this hypothetical solution solves.  Innovation!

Mapping the Innovation Gap

Once you have a systematic and routine way to innovate, you are confronted with a new problem - how to decide how much innovation is enough.  For many, this is an odd question.  If innovation is essential for survival and growth, most people would want all the innovation they can get.  But that is oversimplifying.  Too much innovation can overload the system, confuse the organization, and lead to ideation fatigue.  So how much is enough?

Here is a useful analysis that can tell you how many ideas are needed to reach your specific growth targets called "Mapping the Innovation Gap."  The steps are:

1. Determine your revenue goals in each year over a specific time horizon.  Base this on your firm's strategic planning time horizon (usually 3 to 10 years depending on the industry).  Use the actual revenue targets from your company's business plan. 
2. Break these annual revenue targets down over a mix of products, new and existing, in each year.  Some firms call this a revenue cascade or revenue waterfall.  It shows for each year how much of the revenue comes from existing products and how much comes from new products.
3. Estimate your Innovation Yield (number of new ideas needed to produce one new product).  This varies by industry and by company depending on factors such as level of investment, core competencies, and access to technology.  Various think tanks and consultancies have estimates such as the curve pictured above.
4. Estimate your typical idea-to-launch Lead Time (how much time it takes to develop and launch a product once it is conceived).  As with the Innovation Yield, this will vary.  Take a look at past product development experience and determine an average time (in years).
5. Plot the number of new ideas needed in each year to produce the necessary new products in subsequent years.  Take the number of new products needed in a specific year and divide it by the Innovation Yield.  Then plot this number back in time by the amount of Lead Time to develop ideas.

What you end up with is the number of new ideas that need to be generated each year to have a realistic chance of achieving future revenue growth targets.  It can be a sobering number depending on how aggressive your targets are.  With this number, a general manager can then task the team to "schedule" innovation, and then hold them accountable for generating the necessary number of ideas. 

The bottom line:  to grow, companies need a systematic innovation method, and it needs to be applied systematically.

Download "Mapping the Innovation Gap" here.

Complementary Innovation

Companies are enamored with chasing "white space opportunities."  White space is the nickname for new, undiscovered growth segments.  It spins the notion that opportunity lies just ahead of us.  Telling colleagues you are working on white space opportunities suggests you are doing really important stuff.  It is the ultimate growth endeavor, the risk worth taking.  White space will save the day. 

I'm not so sure.  I have two problems with white space.  It is neither white, nor a space.

White space has come to mean many things: 

• WhiteSpace (Resource Scheduling), name used since 2002 to denote available time for People or Resources when scheduling time
• White space (visual arts), or negative space, the portions of a page left unmarked
• Whitespace (computer science), characters used to represent white space in text
• Whitespace (programming language), an esoteric programming language whose syntax consists only of spaces, tabs and newlines
• White space (telecommunications), unused radio frequencies in the VHF and UHF bands allocated to television transmission.
• White space (education), term used since 2007 in the Singapore Education System to denote time reserved for teachers' personal reflection and planning.
• White Spaces Coalition, a group of technology companies aiming to deliver broadband Internet access via unused analog television frequencies
• White Space (business), the part of a market or segment that is available to a business or entity for new sales or customers
• White Space (Process improvement and management), the area between the boxes in an organizational map, often an area where no one is responsible.

The common theme seems to be the notion of white space as a void, untapped and unused, free and clear - like powdered snow yet to be skied.  If only we could find it (or get the government to give it to us as Google is seeking)!

Where do companies look for white space?  Jim Todhunter at Innovating to Win has published a survey with some very important insights to this.  Most noteworthy is how low respondents rated Complementary Products, a mere 6.3% as a source for white space opportunities.  Jim's advice:  "Reconsider how to look at the red ocean opportunity spaces to expand your market footprint through complementary offerings.  This could be a great less traveled path to revenue growth."

I agree with Jim, but what is curious to me is why this path is less traveled in the first place.  My sense is that companies overlook these complementary innovations because they are too focused on new opportunity defined as a market space rather than a boundary or frontier.  White space is not a space at all.  It is the fringe of what your are currently doing.  The term - adjacency - seems to be a much better way to define it.  White space is not white either.  Complementary innovations are deeply colored by what we know and have experienced.  There is always an old idea buried in a new one.  This is why tools such as S.I.T. and Goldfire are so effective at innovating at the fringe of the current business model - they leverage what is known.

Fortune 100 companies will find more growth opportunities at the margin of what they are doing than by chasing far-flung, ethereal market voids.  Leveraging at the margin takes advantage of existing core competencies and strategic assets.  It yields innovations that stretch the portfolio and the brand.

Stop chasing white space and look for the brightly colored complementary innovations right next to you.

Innovation through Co-opetition

How do you innovate a business model?   You can create new products and services within the current business model to drive growth.  Or you can create a new business model and open up a whole new world of possibilities for the firm.  Either innovate within the current game, or change the game.  But how?   

Several books address this, from Clayton Christensen's "The Innovator's Dilemma," to a more recent offering, "Innovation to the Core: A Blueprint for Transforming How Your Company Innovates"  by Peter Skarczynski and Rowan Gibson.  When Professor Christensen presented his disruptive innovation model to our company several years ago, I remarked that what is needed is NOT so much a disruptive product, but rather a disruptive business model.  His book is a good historical account of a few industries that suggest disrupting (innovating) the business model is what really counts.  While these books and others do a good job of exposing the issue, neither give a prescriptive "how to."  The most recent book suggests a holistic approach.  "To build a breakthrough business model that rivals cannot easily emulate, you'll need to integrate a whole series of complementary, value creating components so the effect is cumulative," the authors note.  Fine, but there are no step-by-step processes how to do it once you have unpacked the original business model.

My answer comes from combining two existing concepts (a Medici Effect as described by Frans Johansson).  Those two existing concepts are Systematic Inventive Thinking (S.I.T.) and Co-opetiton.  S.I.T. is a proven process for generating innovation on demand.  Co-opetition is an idea described by Barry Nalebuff and Adam Brandenburger in their book called, "Co-opetition."  It means cooperative competition, and it is a way to see your industry not as a zero sum game, but rather as a group of participants that can behave in a certain way that benefits all.  They coopetate rather than compete (legally, of course).  I met with Professor Nalebuff and had him "school" me on the concept.

The trick is to apply S.I.T. templates to the Value Net model of co-opetition.  Here's how.  List the activities of each Value Net participant (Company, Supplier, Customer, Complementors, Competitor).  Rotate each specific company in the Value Net model so that each takes a new role (competitors become suppliers, suppliers become complementors, etc).  Use each S.I.T. template on the new list of activities, starting with Task Unification.  Using Function Follows Form, envision how the new role and role player can benefit YOUR company.  Here is an example, using Nintendo as the company of focus:

Now imagine each player rotates clockwise one position.  Applying S.I.T. Task Unification, we ask what roles could Atari perform as a customer to Nintendo that would be beneficial to both.  (For example, could Atari and Nintendo cross license software code to each other, perhaps making some features of their games work on the other's game box?)  Apply all five templates systematically to each role and each player within the context of their new role.  This will generate many new, innovative business model components and themes.

Disruption doesn't have to be uncooperative.

Innovation Follows Strategy

Innovation that is done in the context of business strategy tends to be more focused, efficient, and business-model relevant.  Innovation should not be viewed as a way to take the organization off its strategic track and in new directions.  Rather, innovation should be applied in a way that makes the current strategic track more successful and profitable...true growth.

Yet the tendency is to view this approach as incrementalism and not disruptive enough in the Christensen sense.  Some would say that starting with your current situation is not bold and is risk adverse.  "We're not thinking outside the box" is the usual incantation at this point.  Instead, there is a preference to chasing "white space" and "open source" innovation as a source of growth.  Some executives prefer the lure of white space and opportunity spotting, and they readily acknowledge that it is "low yield by design."  The Scarcity Principle tends to make these opportunities seem more valuable than they really are.  White space chasers position themselves as fighting the heroic fight.  Resources come pouring in.

The best Fortune 100 companies pursue high yield, organic innovation efforts... not "low-yield-by-design" efforts.  High yield innovation comes from tying innovation directly to the strategic marketing context of the firm.  Ideas generated this way help the organization stretch its model in a way that is achievable and internally-sellable.

How do you tie innovation to strategy?  Professor Christie Nordhielm from the University of Michigan has developed what I consider the best single contribution to marketing thought since the 4P's.  Her Big Picture framework of the marketing management process provides the context for innovating across the entire business model.  Applying systematic innovation tools to each aspect of her Big Picture model can yield amazing insights at both the strategic and tactical levels of the business.  It is the intersection of these two ideas...Big Picture Strategy and Systematic Inventive Thinking...that will yield consistent, profitable results.  Innovation follows strategy...not the other way around.

Innovation Subversives

Jim Todhunter offers sound advice for innovation champions who are feeling lonely in their efforts to evangelize:

"This is where many innovation evangelists fall down.  Too often, we are so wrapped up in our own world of high performance innovation practice; we forget that many people don’t have the frame of reference to get what we are describing.  We need to slow down and articulate the message more clearly and use clear examples that demonstrate how sustainable innovation practice builds the company’s value."

This strikes a familiar chord with my colleagues in the Fortune 100.  Not only can innovation champions feel lonely, they can become extinct if they are not careful.  The Association for Managers of Innovation studied why corporate innovation champions struggle to survive.  The study looked at what actions and behaviors put these managers at risk in their efforts to evangelize.  Of the 15 innovation champions in the study, 10 left their organizations and became consultants, 4 joined smaller or start-up companies, and 1 retired. None returned to a Fortune 500 company.  Most of the consultants have as their clients Fortune 500 companies and, in some cases, their former employers.

My advice: stop evangelizing and start doing.  Use a proven innovation method on a mainstream issue or product and let the results speak for themselves.  Don't ask permission.  Don't call it innovation.  Don't preach the "..see, I told you!" message. 

And then...do it again.  I take advice from Thomas Bonoma's classic HBR article from 1986, "Marketing Subversives:"

"I found that under conditions of marketplace change, success depended heavily on the presence of marketing subversives in a company.  Subversive marketers undermined their organizations' structures to implement new marketing practices....And no matter what higher management had decided to allocate to various marketing projects, the subversives found ways to work around the official budget.  They bootlegged the resources they needed to implement new, more appropriate marketing practices."

The same can be said about innovation. 

Are you feeling lonely as an "innovation champion?"  Forget it.  Get suited for subversion.

When to Innovate

People often ask when is the best time to innovate: early in the pipeline process, middle, or late.  Teams tend to resist innovation late in the process when they are busy launching a new product.  Teams tend to resist innovating in the middle of the NPD process because they are too busy developing the next generation product.  Teams tend to resist innovating early in the process because they are too busy developing franchise strategy. 

So when is the best time to innovate?  Anytime. 

Early in the process, you need innovation to develop a large stock of potential novel product ideas.  Tie these early ideas to your franchise marketing strategy.  This makes your strategy more robust and believable.

Early in the process, you need innovation to trigger modifications or enhancements to the product now in development.  This gives you potential differentiating features that you can still build into the new product. 

Late in the process, you need new concepts just when launching a new product to show your company and your customers that you have a sustainable pipeline of ideas behind you.  This gives you credibility.

Innovating is like putting in golf.  Never leave yourself short.