Enhance Productivity and Efficiency with Stephen’s Innovation Insights

Innovation Insights by Stephen Shapiro

Latest Posts

speech about being creative in business
[vc_row ts_row_break_parents=”4″ ts_row_zindex=”0″ ts_row_min_height=”100″ ts_row_parallax_type=”up” ts_row_parallax_speed=”20″ enable_mobile=”false” padding_top=”30″ padding_bottom=”30″ ts_row_bg_position=”top” ts_row_bg_size_standard=”cover” ts_row_bg_size_parallax=”150%” ts_row_bg_repeat=”no-repeat” margin_left=”0″ margin_right=”0″ gradient_angle=”0″ gradient_color_start=”#cccccc” gradient_start_offset=”0″ gradient_color_end=”#cccccc” gradient_end_offset=”100″ video_mute=”true” video_loop=”false” video_start=”false” video_stop=”true” video_controls=”true” video_raster=”false” animation_scroll=”false” animation_speed=”2000″][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1404240996337{margin-bottom: -50px !important;}”]

Watch Stephen Shapiro on stage in various settings around the world. These video clips focus on his style rather than his content.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row css=”.vc_custom_1404240886123{margin-top: -40px !important;padding-left: 0px !important;}” ts_row_break_parents=”4″ ts_row_zindex=”0″ ts_row_min_height=”100″ ts_row_parallax_type=”up” ts_row_parallax_speed=”20″ enable_mobile=”false” padding_top=”30″ padding_bottom=”30″ ts_row_bg_position=”top” ts_row_bg_size_standard=”cover” ts_row_bg_size_parallax=”150%” ts_row_bg_repeat=”no-repeat” margin_left=”0″ margin_right=”0″ gradient_angle=”0″ gradient_color_start=”#cccccc” gradient_start_offset=”0″ gradient_color_end=”#cccccc” gradient_end_offset=”100″ video_mute=”true” video_loop=”false” video_start=”false” video_stop=”true” video_controls=”true” video_raster=”false” animation_scroll=”false” animation_speed=”2000″][vc_column width=”1/1″][sortable_post_grid grid_type=”normal” display_type=”cat” post_type=”post” post_cat=”video” taxonomy=”portfolio-category” post_count=”10″ default_sort=”date” default_grid=”grid-small” display_grid_pos=”grid-left” img_overlay_hide=”hide” disable_asc_sort=”hide”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text] [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

I view life as a series of experiments.  When you look at it through this lens, failure means something completely different.

One definition of an experiment is: “A test or investigation, especially one planned to provide evidence for or against a hypothesis.”

The only way an experiment can fail is if you don’t get the evidence.

Even if the evidence proves your hypotheses was wrong, the experiment itself was a huge success.

When you view innovation through the lens of experimentation, it redefines failure.

When developing new ideas, the best approach (especially when there is “market” uncertainty) is to create small experiments that can be scaled over time.

The experiment can give you one of four outcomes:

  1. Our hypothesis was validated by the experiment.  Let’s make a larger investment in a larger experiment.
  2. Our original hypothesis was wrong, but we found a different direction that looks promising.  Let’s create a new experiment with the new hypothesis.
  3. Our original hypothesis was wrong and we should kill the idea.
  4. Our experiment did not give us enough data to determine whether or not the hypothesis was correct.

Of these four outcomes, only the last one is a failure.  With the other three, the experiment was successful.  It either confirmed that we are on the right path or it stopped us from making further investments.

The problem with some innovation efforts is that insufficient data is gathered throughout the process.  Experimentation is not the mantra.

When you view innovation as a series of experiments, you must make sure that the experiments don’t fail.  It is totally fine if your hypotheses are invalid, as long as you determine that early in the experimentation process.

P.S. One book I really like is “The Science of Success” by Charles Koch.  The entire book is about how experimentation made Koch Industries one of the most innovative – and successful – companies in history.

I recently spoke with a new client who shared with me their innovation measures.  When I looked at their measurement system, I immediately saw flaws.

But before addressing these imperfections, let me first provide you my perspective on innovation measures.

In general, there are three types of measures associated with “challenge-based” innovation (be sure to read this article if you are unfamiliar with the concept of challenge-based innovation):

  1. Process Measures – These measure the activity associated with your challenges (e.g., 500 registered solvers, 40 submissions per challenge, 80 votes per challenge, etc)
  2. Solve-Rate Measures – These subjectively measure how well you solved your challenges (e.g., 82% of challenges were partially solved, 61% of challenges were completely solved, etc)
  3. Value Measures – These measure the actual value accrued (e.g., increased revenues by $25M, reduced costs by $35M, etc)

The last measure (value) is where the rubber meets the road.  This is your ultimate goal.  But sometimes, value realization can take years (or in the case of pharmaceutical companies, decades).  Therefore, the second measure (solve-rate) is a good way to monitor progress with your program.  But what about process measures?

Process measures are leading indicators that can be useful in measuring trends over time for things like community engagement, effectiveness of internal communications, and quality of challenges.

Let’s look at one common process measure: the number of ideas/solutions submitted for a given challenge.  This was one of the measures that my new client used.

Imagine that you are using crowdsourcing to find a solution to a challenge.  You post the challenge on your website or intranet.  A month later you check to see how many responses you get.  In this scenario…

Which is better:

  • getting 100 ideas/solutions?
    or
  • getting only 2 ideas/solutions?

Most people intuitively think that 100 solutions is better than 2.  In fact, most organizations believe that more ideas equates to greater success.  The reality is, however, that 100 is not necessarily better than 2.

Let me re-frame the question…

Which is better:

  • getting 100 ideas where only 2 of them were exactly what you needed and the other 98 were duds?
    or
  • getting 2 ideas where both were exactly what you needed?

Now the correct answer is a bit more obvious.  In this situation, the latter is probably better.  The amount of work needed to sift through the solutions is a lot less when you have only 2 submissions.  Imagine if you received 10,000 ideas of which only 2 were good.  You can see now that the effort to find the best solutions/ideas might be overwhelming.

Although activity is good, too many submissions can indicate that you have a poorly defined challenge.  Therefore the ratio of good ideas to duds might be a more interesting measure.

The key is, make sure you understand the unintended consequences of your measurement system, especially when it comes to process measures. If done properly, process measures can help you drive higher solve rates (measure #2). And often, higher solve rates lead to greater value (measure #3) in the long run.  But not always.

High solve rates with low value can also indicate problems with your innovation program:

  • Poor implementation – You are unable to convert solutions into finished products/services
  • Poor commercialization – Your solutions do not meet the needs of the market/customers and therefore do not generate revenue
  • Poor relevance – Your challenges, although solved, are not important enough to “move the needle” of the organization’s innovation efforts

Measures are important for helping tracking your innovation efforts.  And they can help diagnose potential issues.  But it is important to measure the right things.

There is an old expression: “You will get what you measure.”

But the bigger question is, “Will you get what you want?”

OK, after 2 weeks of sleep deprivation due to manuscript deadlines, I am now back in action here.  The final version of the manuscript went to the publisher on Saturday.  I then played Personality Poker in Memphis with nearly 100 representatives from Penguin’s gift sales on Sunday.   These individuals sell books into non-traditional bookstores, gift stores, hospital gift shops, department stores, casino, and similar places.

Last weekend, I played Personality Poker with a couple hundred people at a conference in Canada.

After the event,  over a dozen of us decided to go to dinner together.  Half the people fit into taxis.   After the taxis departed from the hotel, the remaining individuals went in two cars, one of which I drove.  We had the address and a map. I, being Mr. Technology, plugged the address into the GPS.  The other individual had the map, but also relied on directions he received from the front desk.  I didn’t bother getting directions since I had the navigation system.

I was the first car out of the parking lot. After exiting the hotel, I turned left, just as the GPS told me to do.  The other car followed, but not for long.  David, the other driver flashed his lights.  I kept driving.  After a minute I realized David was no longer behind me.  Instead of believing that I might be going in the wrong direction, I just assumed that the GPS was taking me there via a shortcut.

After taking a series of turns – left, right, left, right, left, right – the final turn led us to a dead end.  In fact, this road was nothing more than a large pile of dirt.  So much for taking a shortcut.

Since my technology was not going to get us there, we needed to rely on the map.  Unfortunately, the map provided by the hotel only had the restaurant marked off.  The hotel was not to be found.  The reason we could not find the hotel on the map was because the map did not extend far enough to include it.

There we were, in the middle of nowhere, with a map that told us nothing – and a GPS that told us even less.

This got me thinking. 

How often do we drive our innovation programs the same way I drove to the restaurant that night?

We create our plans for innovation and we start driving.  There might be signals along the way (like the flashing lights of the car behind us) that something is not right.  In the case of innovation, it might be signals from the customers, buyers, or vendors telling us we are going the wrong way.  But all too often, we continue to drive forward, arrogantly believing we are right and that those signs are all wrong.

No matter how great your plans are, you need to keep your eyes open.  Look for signs. Don’t assume others are wrong.  Maybe your blueprint/map is incorrect.

Or, as Scott Cook from Intuit so eloquently said, “For every one of our failures, we had spreadsheets that looked awesome.”

There are no accurate GPS systems in the world of innovation.  Your ability – and willingness – to adapt, evolve, and change your plans is critical to a successful innovation program.

If you don’t watch out for the signs and you blindly follow your plans, your innovation program will probably lead you to a huge pile of, um, dirt.

P.S. We did eventually get to the hotel.  We did what any sane person would do…we asked for directions.

Last week I spoke at an event hosted by NESTA – the UK’s National Endowment for Science, Technology, and the Arts.

The day focused on Open Innovation and had some spectacular speakers including Cheryl Perkins (the former Chief Innovation Officer for Kimberly-Clark), Karim Lakhani (an open innovation guru from Harvard Business School), Stefan Lindegaard (a well-known expert on open innovation), and Helmut Traitler (from Nestle).

You can watch my opening remarks here. (8 minutes)

On the NESTA website, you can watch all of the other videos including my panel discussion, some Q&A, the morning panel, and more.

NOTES: A few quick comments on my opening remarks video: 1) For those in the US…Pop Idol is the UK version of American Idol. 2) I was a little over eager with InnoCentive “Solver” count. We have over 200K, but not quite a quarter of a million…yet. 3) There are many versions of the Edison quote…the one I prefer is, “I have not failed 700 times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving that those 700 ways will not work. When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work.” Admittedly, I’m not sure what he actually said since I wasn’t there.

This weekend I am speaking at a very cool event!  And I would love to have you join me.

What: The Ultimate Success Event
When: Saturday April 17th, 2010 from 8am to 6:30pm
Where: Chateau Cartier Hotel close to downtown Ottawa Canada

But, to kick things off, the weekend starts Friday night with a private party that is totally free.

Peggy McColl is releasing her 7th book, “Viral Explosions,” and Friday is her book launch party.  I have known Peggy for years, and she is an amazing woman with life changing books.

The party will be a blast.  I will of course be there.  There will be lots of entertainment, free hors d’oeuvres, beverages, and give-aways galore.

Then…after celebrating the launch of “Viral Explosions” on Friday night, Saturday is a full day celebration of your success.

The Ultimate Success Event, Saturday April 17, will be a jam packed, seminar featuring a stellar line up of 13 luminaries in the field of personal and business success coaching, including yours truly.  I’ll be playing Personality Poker with the 250 people in attendance.  Other speakers will talk about marketing, sales, personality development and much much more.

Click here to get ALL the details of both the free Book Launch Party for “Viral Explosions”…AND the Ultimate Success Event.

I hope to see you there!

There was an excellent post by Hutch Carpenter on the blogging innovation website.  In the article, he asked the question – “Is Crowdsourcing Disrupting the Design Industry?”  He makes an excellent case for the value (and pitfalls) of crowdsourcing design work.  As readers of this site know, I have used design crowdsourcing on several occasions.

In response to the article, I wrote…

I use crowdsourcing for some of my designs. And I have to admit, I do sometimes feel a little bad. It’s clear some people put a fair amount of thought into their designs. Sadly, there is typically only one winner.

Having said that, as a consultant, no one feels bad for me when I spend days or weeks developing a proposal that does not get awarded to me. We recognize that it is the cost of doing business.

Let’s face it…for some design work, it might be just as fast to develop a rough concept as it would be to develop a compelling proposal. Crowdsourcing can reduce the time and effort involved in selling design services.

And crowdsourcing, when done correctly, can give you (the “Seeker”) benefits that you would not get through conventional means.

Right now I am running a crowdsourcing competition for a design for my Personality Poker cards. The competition has been running for 2 days, and I received some amazing designs. Because I did a blind competition, everyone has to develop their own idea, rather than simply build on the idea of someone else. This is enhancing the level of creativity significantly.

The winner will get follow on work from me in fleshing out the concept and in future design work. [NOTE: The competition is over and I received 32 designs of which a half dozen of them were fantastic]

I used to use eLance (an eRFP site) for design work. But the results were not always great. Plus each designer has to submit a proposal and decide upon a fee. With 99designs, the designer knows the “prize” and can decide if they want to invest any effort at all.

It’s not spec work that is changing the rules. It is access to the masses. Personally, I would prefer to pay for a solution than a proposal.

I do think, if done well, design crowdsourcing can be beneficial to all involved.

Crowdsourcing has the potential to give designers a reach they have not previously had.  Although their cost per design might go up, their cost of acquisition might actually go down. Proposals are a cost of doing business – and you don’t win every proposal.  Spending time/money on finding customers who want the proposal in the first-place is another cost – and you don’t acquire every customer you target.  Mailing marketing materials to potential customers is another real cost.  The list goes on.   The real cost/time associated with marketing/selling design services is not insignificant.

Crowdsourcing allows you to convert your marketing/selling time into design time.  Your only cost is your time to develop the submitted designs.  This feels like a much better use of design resources.

Last year, LG Electronics ran an open innovation competition in search of the next generation cell phone.

If you did not enter last year, you have another chance to win $20,000.

According to their press release…

LG Mobile Phones, the fastest growing mobile phone brand in North America,  is partnering with crowdSPRING, an online marketplace for creative services, and Autodesk, a leader in 2D and 3D design, engineering, and entertainment software, to hold an innovative competition to define the future of mobile communication.  Starting on March 15th, LG Mobile Phones will give consumers the chance to design their vision of the next revolutionary LG mobile phone and compete for more than $80,000 in prizes.

The competition will award over 40 winners.  The first place winner will be awarded $20,000, one Wacom Intuos4 medium tablet, and Autodesk industrial design software.  The second place winner will be awarded $10,000 and Autodesk SketchBook Pro software, and the third place winner will be awarded $5,000 and Autodesk SketchBook Pro software.  To reward as many people as possible in the name of creativity, LG will also be giving out a whopping 37 honorable mentions at $1,000 each.

You can  read all of the rules, and enter the competition, on the crowdSPRING website.

Last year, LG Electronics shared some of their insights with me.  There were 835 submissions from 324 individuals.  Of the ideas submitted, 25% were deemed “good.”  I’ll be curious to see how they do this year.

I also hope to find out if anything was done with the winning solution(s) from last year’s competition.  Although these competitions generate some nice PR, at the end of the day, the real value is derived through the implementation of innovation.

Good luck!

Nearly 2 years ago, I used open innovation to develop the logo used on this site.

I am now using open innovation again to help redesign my Personality Poker cards.

As you know, later this year, the Personality Poker book will be published by Penguin’s Portfolio imprint.  The publisher designed the book cover (we aren’t prepared to share that with the world quite yet).  Then, based on that design, the backs of the Personality Poker cards were redesigned to match (image left).

Yesterday, I launched a design project on 99designs.com, the leader in design-based open innovation.  Last time I ran a competition, I had some interesting learnings.

One of the challenges had to do with people building on the ideas of others.  In some respects, this was great.  As a good design was developed, others could help refine and improve.  However, as my article points out, there was a downside: how to choose a winner.

But the other downside associated with a collaborative challenge is “group think.”  As soon as the first idea is thrown out, it tends to influence the thinking of the other contributors, narrowing the set of ideas generated and reducing divergent thinking.  I discuss this concept in my article on the “hand dryer vs paper towel debate.”

Therefore, for the poker card redesign, I decided to go with private submissions.  That is, no one can see what others are submitting.  I will write more about my experience with this next week.

If you are interested in reading the design brief without having to logon to 99designs, you can read it here (pdf).

Or, if you want to submit your own designs for my challenge, go to the 99designs website.

Brad Kolar is one of the brightest guys I know.  He and I worked together in Accenture back in the mid-90’s.  He has been a contributor to all of my books.  And now he is the co-author of a fascinating book called “The Brain Advantage. ” I had the privilege of receiving a review copy and loved it so much, I provided an endorsement.

“For years, experts have been teaching leaders so-called soft skills. To date, there has only been anecdotal evidence to support their theories. Finally, The Brain Advantage turns these theories into hard science. Anyone with half a brain would buy copies for their entire organization.”

Recently I interviewed Brad for a podcast.  What you will hear are 40 minutes of fascinating dialogue about the brain, leadership, and innovation.  By better understanding the brain, you can help unleash the full creative potential of your organization.

Stream the interview…[audio:brad.mp3]

Or download the mp3

Bring Stephen’s innovation insights to your next event!