During re-entry of the Columbia shuttle on February 1, 2003, the craft disintegrated, killing all seven crew members on board. It was later discovered that warnings and concerns about potential damage were suppressed, resulting in this stinging statement in a follow-up report: “NASA’s organizational culture had as much to do with this accident as the foam did.” Investigators said the culture was characterized by “barriers that prevented effective communication of critical safety information and stifled professional differences of opinion.”
The Columbia disaster is only one example highlighted in a Harvard Management Communication article, How to Get the Bad News You Need. It states that few executives actively engage in suppressing the flow of information, but the absence of policies and procedures to encourage employees to speak up, actually encourages them to keep vital information to themselves. The threat of embarrassment, humiliation or career damage is a silencer that can be overcome using some of the following strategies:
This morning I did a google search for “Think Outside the Box” and received 17,800,000 results. As I scanned the results, it became apparent that there is no shortage of tools, tips and advice on how to “think outside the box”. So, what’s the problem?
Simplistic is right! I sat back and wondered, what does it actually mean to “think outside the box”? What exactly, are we asking people to do?
Take a leap of faith… that sounds nice but the reason I want to innovate is to drive better results. And taking a “leap of faith” feels a little uncomfortable if not downright risky when, really, I’m accountable for improving quality, efficieny and sales. If I was sure that taking a leap of faith was all it took to create breakthrough solutions that would be one thing, but…
Fortunately, there are tried and true innovation best practices that are available to anyone.
Innovation does not have to be complex. There are simple, practical “back-of-the-napkin” tools you can use to create innovative solutions to both everyday problems and your most important strategic challenges.
In the coming weeks, we’ll explore some of these tools, and in the process help you (and us) become more innovative and achieve the results we all want.
Q: How do we engage you?
A. Contact Juice inc. by phone 519-822-5479, email Kevin @ .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or Rick @ .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or visit www.juiceinc.com .
If you would like to view the Innovation in a Box webinar, click here.
Q: Can you provide ammunition to make the case to a manager?
A. Ask them to watch the Innovation video (http://www.juiceinc.com/programs/show/innovation-in-a-box) and/or Webinar (http://www.juiceinc.com/media/webinar/innovation-in-a-box-everyday-people-breakthrough-solutions). I would suggest getting together on a call where we can go through the content.
Q: While these tools are valuable for generating creativity - how do you "train" leaders to support innovation / create a culture of innovation, i.e., be willing to accept a level of risk from their team?
A: Two parts to this answer:
1. The individual Leader
2. The organization
The leader’s need to "get or understand" innovation in the same way that everyone else does. So, some of the basic theory is important. There is a business case to be made for innovation, and then they need to understand what’s required for implementation.
From an organizational change perspective, the following needs to be true.
There are general best practices that reflect what leaders can do to support the development of innovation as part of a culture. These include:
As each corporate culture is distinct, there are also ways leaders can support the development of a culture of innovation that must be tailored to the organization and the point in time. A process of discovery creates a strategic, targeted approach for leaders to take to ensure innovation settles in to the organization with the least resistance and greatest return possible.
The discovery categories include:
If you would like to view the Innovation in a Box webinar, click here.
.jpg)
Q: When asked to come up with a new idea. What do you find is the best method to start, brainstorming, brain-mapping etc?
A: If I’m working with a new group, I am going to do some standard things right off the bat. Let’s assume that I have a day, and the goal is less about training and more about truly tackling a problem/opportunity. Let’s also assume that I’m working with an average group, i.e. a mix of folks in terms of preferences, experience, buy-in, etc. As we work together, and get to know one another, the agenda may well flex.
I will do some positioning:
a. Torrance Test
b. The importance of breakthrough thinking
c. Brain Poker - lead in to i5, and the process
I like to have spent some time upfront clarifying the problem/opportunity statement. This can save a lot of time in the session.
I would take them through a process of investigation and ideation…
Investigation:
If I’ve done the pre-work, then I can start with this. Since I’m a graphic facilitator (which in this context simply means that I like to draw things out BIG), I may have pre-drawn one of these tools - based on the input I’ve received from my client prior to the session.
1. Let’s understand why this is an issue? Therefore a Context Map and/or Mindmap (which I like more than a Fishbone, but I’m using it as an analytical tool).
2. Springboard off of the Mindmap, generating ideas, I’m leveraging the investigation tool to start brainstorming. This is nice because it’s what I would refer to as a related stimulus (a slight skewing of the term I admit), it’s building off of what they know.
Ideation
I really like 3-12-3 brainstorming as a way to jumpstart beyond traditional brainstorming. It takes traditional brainstorming, and adds some additional structure.
If you would like to view the Innovation in a Box webinar, click here.
.jpg)
Q: How do you go through the innovation process as a group when you have people in the different quadrants?
A: Ideas:
To paraphrase Jim Collins, your best bet is to have the right people on the bus, what IDEO calls "t-shaped individuals". The issue isn’t so much quadrants, as OPENness, i.e. we can think differently, but we need to be capable of dialogue.
However, in most cases cherry-picking a dream team isn’t an option. Even when it is, I start with the assumption that you are going to have people in different quadrants, which is okay, and that you’re going to have people who are less than fully open, which is not really Ok.
So I’m going to answer two questions:
Four Quadrants
Openness
If you would like to view the Innovation in a Box webinar, click here.
Following our Innovation in a Box webinar, we received a number of questions that I have followed up and answered. There were some great questions, so I thought it would be a good idea to post them for your knowledge and interest.
Q: How do you approach innovation when your infrastructure doesn't have the technology to implement your ideas?
A: Ideas:
This is almost an expectation, or let me re-frame that. Breakthrough innovation is almost by definition going to be "impossible", so if it’s not an infrastructure issue, it will be a money issue, or some other issue. In fact, use an Implementation Checklist to determine what the issues are. It’s almost a "let’s anticipate that it’s going to rain" approach.
More specifically to answer your question...Collaborate, i.e. who can you hire, partner with, borrow from, acquire, train to do the work, with you or for you?
e.g. Creating an assessment with an outside service provider. The downside is that this is going to cost, either in terms of fee for service, or shared ownership, but there is limited options. Developing the capacity in-house is going to be equivalent...
Apply the same tools to the new problem-statement (your question) that we applied to the original problem statement, i.e. which gave you the product idea to begin with.
e.g. Mindmap + Scamper (Innovation tools part of the Innovation in a Box training program. For more information, contact us.)
If you would like to view the Innovation in a Box webinar, click here.
The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking was developed by Ellis Paul Torrance, an American psychologist in 2003. This test uses benchmarking to measure creativity. The full test involves simple tests of divergent and lateral thinking and other problem solving skills. They were scored on four things: fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration.
In Chapter 1 of the Graphic Innovation Guide, I used one part of the Torrance Test to expand on these four scales. I asked participants to write down as many uses for a tin can that they could think of. When the Torrance test measures your creativity in terms of fluency, it is measuring the number of ideas you are able to think of in a given period of time. Flexibility measures the range of categories for the ideas you come up with. Originality measures the rarity of the idea, or if it is a new, original idea. Finally, elaboration was not mentioned in Chapter 1, however; it measures the amount of detail used in your responses.
This test and the scales that it measures can be very insightful. We have talked about why innovation is so important to the success of a business. Innovation allows you to come up with breakthrough solutions. So if your goal is innovation, then it is important to know that we should increase our focus on all of these four scales. We must brainstorm ideas that have fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. The Torrance Test is agreat way to do that. If you would like more information on this, email me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
.jpg)
We all experience stress in our lives. They may be small, everyday stressors like getting stuck in traffic, missing a work deadline or getting into an argument. Or they may be larger stressful events like getting into a car accident and being laid off from your job. Whether experiencing a small or large stressor, we will have a physiological body response to the perceived threat or danger. The response occurs in a part of our brain called the hypothalamus. When we are stimulated, the hypothalamus activates two systems which produce the flight or fight response. You can read more about this process here.
The physical responses that result are intended to help protect you from the danger you are facing. Some of these include our respiratory rate increasing, awareness intensifying, pupils dilate, our sight sharpens, our impulses quicken, etc. They prepare you to either run from the threat (flight) or fight against it. When we are faced with a problem or stressor and in this state of mind it is extremely difficult to think rationally. Out of fear, we are in a negative state of mind, our rational mind is disengaged, we are overwhelmed and only focused on short-term survival, resulting in being unable to make clear choices and recognize the consequences.
Being aware of this can be very beneficial in our work and personal lives. Everyday we are faced with different stresses and try to deal with it in the best way. Knowing this, it is helpful to avoid giving in to our automatic fight or flight response. Instead, we should do the opposite. Try to stop and take time to keep calm so that we can rationally respond to the threat - this is called the STOP model. For more information, read Using the STOP Model blog post.
.jpg)
Working to achieve our goals often causes us great stress, especially when the goal is very important and there is a great amount of pressure surrounding us. The increased pressure causes us to be triggered leaving us unable to think or function as efficiently as we normally would. This concept is discussed in Chapter 3 of Rick Boersma’s Graphic Innovation Guide. In dealing with this, Rick introduces Timothy Gallwey’s S.T.O.P. Model "The First Rule of Coaching".
The S.T.O.P. acronym stands for:
This is a tool that can be applied to many situations in addition to coaching. This process can be very useful in your work life because there are many situations that it can be applied. Rick explains that it can be seen as the first rule of not only coaching, but used in emotional intelligence, innovation, problem solving, team building, etc. The first step, Stepping back, is also the most difficult because we are usually triggered and under pressure. However, in doing so, we are able to move on to the next step and Think with a clear mind. Then we Organize our thoughts and decide how we will execute them. Finally, we actually Proceed to carry out what we have carefully thought through. This tool is especially effective in situations that involve high stress, not only at work but also our personal lives. A well thought out process gives you more awareness of yourself and surroundings, allowing you to better respond.
As many of you know, Wed. July 13th I hosted a live Innovation in a Box webinar which was very successful. If you happened to miss it and are interested, you can still watch the recorded version by clicking or copying the following link into your browser: http://www.juiceinc.com/media/webinar/innovation-in-a-box-everyday-people-breakthrough-solutions
We received many inquiries as to what writing program I used for the webinar, so here is some more information!
The program I used for drawing on the screen is called Ultimate Pen, http://www.snowmintcs.com/products/ultimatepenmac/.
Finally - a bit of practice makes, well, if not exactly perfect, certainly all right.
A very effective tool I recently learned and found of good use is Paired Comparison. This is one of the tools found in the Innovation in a Box training program created by Rick Boersma. What I really like about it is the fact that it can be used to help you structure and make decisions no matter how big or small the choice may be. It is a great way of providing a framework and weighing up the relative importance of different options.
Here’s how it works. You list all your options. Then compare every option with each of the others. Once you decide which of the two options is more important, you score the difference in importance. Once you do this for all pairs, you will finish off with an ordered list of the options that are best suited to your needs. I would have found this tool especially useful a couple of months ago when I was making my decision for where I should work for my summer co-op term. Although the choice seems obvious now, I was debating between my position at Juice Inc. and a much larger, more corporate company. I knew the things I hoped to get out of my work experience as well as what each, very different company had to offer. However, it was hard to make this connection. If I had used Paired Comparison, it would have been very useful to help me focus on each aspect in a structured way and more easily establish which job would be the best fit for me. This tool is helpful not only with personal decisions, but also aid in your work life. The Paired Comparison tool allows you to take on a structured approach and come to your solution in a timely, easy manner.
Innovation is a strategic priority for organizations, but simply telling employees to "think out of the box" is a recipe for frustration and failure. A structured approach to innovation leads to a 500 percent increase in useful ideas.
Yesterday, my colleague, Rick Boersma, did a fantastic job on an innovation webinar! He did what he does best - talks about innovation while drawing. The technology he used gave him the ability to draw "live" - this in itself was an innovation for us. And it worked perfectly! A number of attendees have asked how this was done and we are gathering that information and will have it available tomorrow.
If you are interested in downloading the webinar - click here. Great Job Rick!
What makes you who you are? Although we know our curly hair, straight teeth and overall good looks are the result of the genes we inherit from our parents, it is much tougher to understand how exactly our personality, talents, and behaviours are developed. Are your musical abilities learned from your family or predetermined by your genes? This age old question has been in debate since the 13th century with no certain answer. It is not known how much of our makeup we can contribute to our parents or the environments we grow up in. For instance, you and your siblings may have very similar mannerisms and personality traits, but is this because of the genes from your parents or because you have grown up in the same environment? At the same time, one may argue that their siblings have more differences than similarities, but is it because genes are playing a smaller role, or has the environment just changed due to attending different schools, the child’s birth order, or the different friends and teachers that influence them. It is almost impossible to decipher whether differences are due to environment, simply because even though you may have grown up with the same parents, in the same house in the same neighbourhood, there are many other variables. A major one is the different people that affect our lives causing us to have different experiences. On the other hand, there have been numerous studies on genetics and their influence on individuals, namely twin studies.
Twin studies are a key tool in behavioural genetics and can show the extent to which genes play a role in influencing one’s traits. Studies have shown that identical twins share almost 100% of their genetic polymorphisms whereas fraternal twins only share 50%. This means that most variation in their traits is due to their individual unique experiences. Other twin studies have been conducted when twins are separated at birth and grow up without knowing they have a twin. They are studied and introduced later in their lives to see the similarities or differences that exist. A good example of this study is with twins Elyse Schein and Paula Bernsteinwho grew up not knowing about each other but met as adults. They were fascinated to find they had so many unique similarities even though they grew up in different cities with different families. According to Bernstein, this seems to show that genes influence at least 50% of one’s traits. Although this finding was dominant in this study, it does not hold true for all cases. Many would argue that similar social class, education, and family values are a big influence as well. Every case is different, there has been no agreement on how much of nature or nurture affects us, nor which one has a greater influence. The only thing that has been recognized is that both interact with one another and play a role in our development.
It is helpful to understand how nature and nurture affect and shape us not only in our personal lives, but also in the way we work and how we interact with our coworkers. We all have different thinking preferences, which are explained by Rick Boersma in Chapter 3 of his Graphic Innovation Field Guide. This is depicted in a four quadrant model and depending on which box you fit into, will determine your strengths and weaknesses. Being aware of your own, as well as other’s thinking preferences, can improve your work relationships and help you better interact and communicate with one another.
.jpg)
I'm really excited about my Innovation article that was recently published in the Summer 2011 Canadian Manager magazine!
Click here to check it out: http://www.juiceinc.com/articles/show/canadian-manager-article
This is the final version of the Fishbone tool. Enjoy!
.jpg)
This is the next phase of the Fishbone Diagram!
.JPG)
For those of you that don't know, I'm working on a Graphic Innovation Guide based on the Innovation in a Box training program. I'm currently working on the specific tools for the chapter on Investigation. The tool is the Fishbone Diagram and here's how it's looking so far.
If you are interested in more information on the Graphic Innovation Guide, sign up to receive a chapter per month until the book is complete. In exchange, we seek your feedback to make the final product the best it can be.
Click here to read the Introduction.
Tears welled up in Shelly’s eyes as she told me about her boss’ sacrifice. Shelly was stuck in a no-win situation. She managed a highly-complex nursing unit with too few resources, too many demands and too much emotional energy being sucked out of her by a chronic bullying issue.
Kate, my boss came to me and said, ‘I’m carrying your pager for the next six weeks while you get things straightened out. I’ll let you know what you need to respond to and I’ll take care of the rest. What kind of a boss does something like that?!”
In short, only big people do things like that. Scott Peck unpacks the concept of human enlargement in The Road Less Traveled*. Psychologists say that when “we are attracted to, invest in and commit to an object outside ourselves 'we actually cathect it' We psychologically incorporate a representation of that object into ourselves.' In the process of cathexis, we extend the boundaries of our personhood by stretching out toward the object of our love whose growth we wish to nurture.”
My neighbor Mary-Catherine is a gardener who loves her garden. When she’s at work and takes a break for lunch she pulls out her Lee Valley catalogue and studies the gardening section. On rainy days she’s creating sketches of how she envisions her garden to be. In a very real way, Mary-Catherine has incorporated the garden within her, and by this incorporation her self has become enlarged. She is not only Mary-Catherine anymore, she is Mary-Catherine with a garden growing inside her.
Those of us who are parents have experienced this first-hand. I am not only a person, I am a person with children and grandchildren living inside me. Through cathexis - being attracted to, investing in and committing to the objects of my love I have become a bigger person. In short, love has made me big.
If love enlarges us, think how large Mother Theresa’s soul was. She cathected thousands inside of her. Think how small the soul of a cold, heartless banker who only lives for his own self interests.
I’ve been on a quest to discover a working definition for love. I think maybe there’s one inside this concept of cathexis. My current working definition for love is extending yourself to invest in someone’s highest good.
So back to Shelly’s question, “What kind of a boss carries her employee’s pager for six weeks?” A boss who is attracted to, invested in and committed to the highest good of her employees. In short, a boss with employees living inside of her. It’s only a big person who makes a big boss.
How big are you on the inside? What, or whom do you have living inside of you? If you extend yourself to invest in the highest good of your employees, it is possible that one of them is speaking positively about you right now and asking, “What kind of a boss does something like that?”
*If you haven’t yet read it, pick up Scott Peck’s book The Road Less Traveled. His thoughts on cathexis are on page 52-53 of Love at Work.
_Page_04(1).jpg)
How important is it that CEOs are bought in to innovation initiatives at a company?
When I was asked this question by an editor recently, this is my response...
Innovation can definitely happen at the grass-roots. Innovation initiatives can be driven by individuals, project-teams and departments. Individuals and managers can work within their own circles of influence and do incredibly innovative work almost regardless of the overall culture of innovation in the company. But, if one looks at icons of corporate innovation: Apple, Google, P+G...Companies that really do have cultures of innovation ( cultures which allow them to reap a harvest in terms of innovative products and services) then having the CEO on board is critical.
_Page_13.jpg)
Is there a gap between how companies value enterprise innovation versus the resources they actually devote to it? What are the reasons behind this disparity?
When I was asked this question by an editor recently, this is my response...
There is absolutely a disparity between how companies say they value enterprise innovation (or innovation of any kind), and the resources they devote to it. The proof of this is evident in an examination of the financial-results posted by different companies in any given sector. Truly innovative companies in every sector out-perform their less innovative competitors by an order of magnitude. Although lip-service is paid to “innovation”, relatively few companies follow through.
The principle reasons are
Let’s look at each of these briefly.
Do you think companies are more concerned with product innovation than enterprise innovation? Why? Does the economy have anything to do with it?
When I was asked this question by an editor recently, this is my response...
I’ll be provocative here and say that companies should be more interested in product innovation then enterprise innovation because of the numbers associated with breakthrough products. Truly superior new products have 4-5 times the success rate, market share and rated profit of “me too” new products.
Having said this, the reality is that few companies are willing to dedicate the resources necessary to ensure breakthrough innovation on either the product or enterprise side. Most innovation in most organizations is incremental.
Most enterprise innovation efforts are focused on the maintenance or mild improvement of the status quo. More often then not it’s focused on incremental cost-savings. In fact, it’s questionable whether it should even be called innovation - it’s really problem-solving.
Does the economy have anything to do with it? Absolutely. Under pressure companies are risk-adverse. Rather then making bold-bets they focus on maintenance. The irony of course is that while they do this, their competition may pass them by. The low-risk strategy in the short-term is high-risk in the long-term.
Learn how a so-called "average" group using innovation tools can produce 500 percent more useful ideas than a "creative" group. Innovation in a Box™ unleashes the creative thinking that powers business success.
There is a tension between being asked to “Think Outside of the Box” and the type of “strength-finding” research and recommendations of thinkers like Marcus Buckingham, Dan Pink and even Jim Collins.
We know that there are a series of Innovation stages, what we call “the i5”: identification, investigation, ideation, impact evaluation, and implementation. These stages roughly correlate with different personality or thinking preferences. When we ask someone to think outside of the box - we might very well be asking them to think “outside of their preferences” as well. In turn, Buckingham, Pink and Collins might all say that we’re setting them up for failure:
- Buckingham: “Operate according to your strengths”, i.e. stay in your box.
- Pink: “Gain mastery”, i.e. stay in your box.
- Collins: “Focus on your hedgehog”, i.e. stay in your box.
And I largely agree with them - or I would if we lived in a perfect world. If you work in a context where you can enlist a collaborative “dream team” (what Collins would call getting the right people on the bus), then each member of that team will probably be able to spend time operating from strengths, gaining mastery, doing what they do best. Who wouldn’t want that?
However many of the clients we work with don’t have that luxury. They are charged with innovation, but need to rally their existing teams to the cause, and although their teams may be wonderful, they’re not necessarily “dream” teams crafted specifically for innovation. In fact if anything they’re probably crafted for execution and efficiency. I’d argue that the biggest challenge of Innovation training is to give self-professed “normal” or “average” teams tools that will help them comfortably and effectively approach opportunities in a new way.
Einstein said that the definition of insanity is, “Doing the same thing you’ve always done, and expecting a different (innovative) result”. I’d say our challenge is helping people bridge the gap between doing what they do best, and trying something new, without losing their engagement in the process.
As Collins says in Good to Great, Great companies act like hedgehogs. I’d say in every company, and in every career, there are moments where you need to think like a fox.
One of the things I love about DVD's are the extras, and particularly the "Making of..." background documentaries on the films themselves. I remember watching the BBC's Planet Earth Series, and each episode had a background doc on making that episode, and they were often as interesting as the episode itself.
I won't claim our little test video, nor the "making of it" is in the same category as Planet Earth, but hopefully you will find it interesting.
.jpg)
The video started with the content. I've been running Innovation in a Box programs for several years, and having been working on the Graphic Guide for over six months, so there was lots of content. Also, the programs are highly visual, employing a lot of graphic facilitation. Since the goal of this video was to provide an introduction to the world of Innovation in a Box, we knew we wanted to animate it, i.e. live drawing. So I pulled out some 11x17 paper and a pencil and started do a visual mindump. The illustration below is the second version that I did. It's admittedly very rough (and hard to read) but it will give you an idea of the process - and particularly how my mind works. The globe in the video is in the upper left portion of the video.
This next illustration is a larger version of the globe.
We decided not to use whiteboards because...well, I wanted more control of the line, texture, and colour. And because although I love whiteboards, I love drawing on paper more. In order for that to work, our video team at Highrise Studios set up a glass table with lights underneath, and camera above. Here is a picture of the set-up.
The lighting rig: there's a light to my left, and another bounced up through the table. The tripod is between me and the monitor in this shot with the camera mounted pointing down on the paper. The positioning was a bit awkward, forcing me to draw from the side instead of head on. The tape on the table was the frame I had to stay within.
I wrote and recorded the voice-over, and then we shot the video. Both the voice-over and the video required three takes. The video is a minute and 57 seconds long. The actual shoot was closer to 20 minutes. It was then sped up...a lot...to match the voiceover.
And a link to the actual video:
This is a "test" video for introducing Innovation in a Box. Ultimately we'll produce a series of videos to support the Innovation in a Box training and tools. In other words, as well as the Graphic Guide and Participant's Toolbox, we'll have video support for each of the chapters, and each stage of the i5 Innovation Process.
This video clip is actually a portion of a longer Introduction video that we'll be shooting in February. We were really just working out some of the technical kinks at this shoot - but liked the results enough to post it now. We'll be tweaking the next shoot in terms of lighting, content, colour, and having clearer handwriting (and removing the price stickers from the pens). We're really psyched about it. In the meanwhile however we hope you enjoy it - and we'd love your feedback.
My next post will look at the "making of..." this video.
Test Animation Video - Draft 3 from Juice Inc. on Vimeo.
Putting on my graphic-novelist’s hat for the afternoon, and here’s the result. Continuing the story of the Torrance test. The quantity of ideas is important, but you also need diversity or range. But, as this page implies, there’s more…
Looking for some feedback, then we’ll edit and re-post.
I find myself with a backlist of blogging topics – but not wanting to spend the time when I “should” be working on the Graphic Innovation Guide. So this is another two-birds with one blog post, a partial page from the Guide done this afternoon. Once it’s done I’ll post the complete page, but in the meantime, enjoy…
Still needs some shading, backgrounds and colour, but coming along!
A colleague, Lara, asked me today whether I had seen the latest ads from Mark’s Work Wearhouse. I don’t watch much TV, so I hadn’t, but I went online to 
check them out. http://www2.marks.com/InnovationTV.asp
A few things stood out.
One is that “Innovation” is hot. We know that innovation is critical, for organizations, for individuals, for society, for humankind, for the planet. It’s also a buzz-word: “innovation” sells as a marketing adjective, as in “innovative products and services”. It’s the new “green”.
But real innovation also sells because it produces real improvements in products, services and processes. Truly revolutionary innovations create (and disrupt) services, users, industries, markets, categories. IDEO’s Tim Brown in Change by Design presents a simple matrix for talking about types of innovation…
In addition to radical or revolutionary innovation, there are evolutionary innovations, and incremental innovations – the latter category being the bread + butter of most organizations.
So where do Mark’s innovation lie? I’d argue that they range along the spectrum from incremental to mildly evolutionary.
I think they’ll do well by these products. The marketing is right, and although they’re not radical “wow!” breakthroughs, they are addressing simple but real performance gaps in the products they’re highlighting.
Graphic Innovation Guide – Sign up now!.jpg)
Our very own Rick Boersma, Illustrator, Facilitator, Educator and Innovator is completing a Graphic Innovation Guide and we would love to get you involved! If you sign up you will receive a chapter per month until the book is complete. In exchange, we seek your feedback to make the final product the best it can be. Click here to read the Introduction.
PS - To learn more about the Juice/Floworks training program
Innovation in a Box, email us at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and we will send you one of the experiential exercises to try!
Recently one of our distributors told me about a conversation she’d had with the CEO of a global logistics firm where he made the comment, “I don’t believe that you can teach innovation. Some people are creative, but most aren’t.”
I would have reframed the question for him: “Do you think that we can give people tools that will help them think more effectively? For instance, are there time and project management tools that will help an individual or team organize itself? Are there processes and tools that will help you analyze problems more effectively? Like six sigma ?”
My guess is that he would have had to reply with a “Yes”. Our argument in Innovation in a Box is that there is an innovation tool-set that will help anyone, creative or non-creative, generate more innovative ideas.
Let’s imagine that we have an individual who is decidedly not creative, by their own admission and frankly by the evidence. Based on the model outlined in our last blog post, they are acutely left-brain dominant. In fact let’s call then “green”: they’re linear, procedural, organized, practical. They’re very good at project-management, but when asked to “think outside of their green box” they have a tough time. They’re not sure what this means, let alone how to do it. Innovation in a Box answers both of these questions.
What does “think out of the box” mean?
In the same way that a traditional IQ test measures analytical thinking skills, there are a variety of tests designed to measure creativity. The classic is the Torrance Test. Developed by E. Paul Torrance, it uses benchmarking to measure relative creativity. The full test involves simple tests of divergent and lateral problem solving skills. A highly creative individual will perform well in three categories:
By definition our “non-creative” test subject will not perform well. They will produce a few ideas, that tend to be similar to one another, and similar to what other test subjects produce. An antiseptic test environment however is very different then the real-world, and we can use those test results as the basis for increasing innovation. Basically we can legitimately “cheat” to get a better score, as in an open-book exam. We’re interested in results rather than labeling or judgement.
When asked to think “out of the box”, we’re really asking people to come up with great ideas. To do that you simply have to support people by giving them methodologies and tools that help them increase the number, range and originality of their ideas. This is no different then giving a disorganized person time-management tools, or someone who is always late, an alarm on their watch or phone. In fact research shows that teams that use innovation tools produce up to 500% more quality ideas then unsupported teams.
So, the “what” of thinking outside of the box is increasing our impact: the number, range and originality of our ideas. In future posts we’ll give various examples of tools that will help you deal with the “how”.
In a world that is defined by complexity and ambiguity, we need innovation in both the private and public spheres. A real challenge in both is framing issues and solutions in ways that people understand.
We had a municipal election this week in my hometown of Guelph, Ontario. The winner was our incumbent, Karen Farbridge, who could be described as an activist or progressive mayor. Although Guelph is in Canada, we’re close enough to the U.S. geographically, and perhaps even “closer” media-wise, that the tension between progressives and conservatives is a factor in elections, and I always wonder how much individual’s innate mental preferences (or wiring) plays a role in their voting.
In Innovation in a Box we use a four quadrant model to describe thinking preferences. People (voters) who are left brain dominant tend to be analytical and linear – organized, disciplined and procedural. If they’re strongly left-dominant, they will see the world, problems, and solutions in black and white terms. They will tend to vote for the candidate who mirrors these preferences. The astute politician speaking to a Left Brain audience will want to outline black + white solutions to problems.
On the flip side, voters who are right-brain dominant will tend to take more of a strategic and creative approach to issues, and will tend to be more people-centric as well. Again, they’ll support candidates who reflect those preferences. The astute politician speaking to a Right Brain crowd should feel comfortable speaking in big-picture, even visionary terms, and needn’t shy from complexity. Their supporters will be comfortable with “shades of grey”and ambiguity, in fact, they may even prefer it.
A successful politician needs to speak to the concerns of all constituents in order to get elected. If it stops there, we call it pandering. A truly successful politician however is one who leaves a legacy of accomplishments. This requires a “whole brain” approach beyond the election – where they identify and analyze key issues (left brain), enlist the public and brainstorm solutions (right brain) and then implement those solutions responsibly and effectively.
While editing the Graphic Innovation Guide, I noticed that there are a lot of light bulbs.
For decades of course, lightbulbs have symbolized innovation, and in my rough draft I’ve used them liberally – they’re a convenient shorthand. They’re also easy and fun to draw. However it crossed my mind that perhaps I could, even should, “walk the innovative talk” by coming up with a new icon. So I pulled out a pen and scrap piece of paper and did a bit of two step mind-mapping.
The reason we use icons (e.g. traffic, washroom and safety signs) is they are immediately recognizable – we don’t have to think about them. When I look at the options I generated, none of them jump out at me crying “I’m a clear symbol of innovation!”. In my pursuit of innovation for the sake of innovation (or novelty) I’d actually be doing the reader a disservice – and undermining my own work in the process.
In short, there are tools, products, services and icons that are classics, and just fine they way they are. Give thanks to the lowly lightbulb!
One of the core principles of innovation is synthesis, which is defined as “bringing two or more entities together to create something new”. Since I made yesterday’s Innovation of the Day Pickaxe post, I’ve had exactly that experience.
I had emailed my friend + designer Ed O’Connor (eOleo Design, http://www.edoconnor.info) my sketch of the new pick-axe design, and he in-turn went online to see if he could find an ergonomic pickaxe. He didn’t but instead sent a link to Lee Valley Tools, and a framing hammer that prompted some more specific ideas for shock-absorption http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/page.aspx?p=58697&cat=1,53193.
Based on that picture (note the blue padding in the exploded view of the hammer head) I sketched the following detail for my pickaxe design. One of the nice features of a traditional pick-axe is that head slips onto the shaft from the bottom, and can’t fly off because the top of the shaft flairs out. In this design I wanted to maintain that feature. Even if the bolt holding the shock absorption loosens, it will be held by the head.
(Why don’t they design splitting axes the same way? I’ve had more then one axe-head fly off over the years. There’s another re-design opportunity!)
I realize that you might not actually be interested in pick-axes, but of course I’m really using this example to illustrate some basic innovation principles. 
In another example of synthesis (and perhaps serendipity) I was reading the book Change By Design written by IDEO’s Tim Brown at the same time as I was working on this sketch. The section I was reading had to do with Design Thinking vs. product design. To quote Brown, p.42
“Evolution from Design to Design Thinking is the evolution from the creation of products to the analysis of the relationship between people and products”…
Which led directly to a slot-screwdriver vs. allen-key insight.
A small feature of my pick-axe design is that instead of using an allen-key to tighten the bolt that holds on the shock-absorption, I specified using a slotted-screwdriver. This comes directly out of some recent IKEA furniture dismantling experiences – where my kids couldn’t find the standard allen key. Although an allen-key is a better tool, can you find one when you need it in the back-garden? There is generally a screwdriver around however, and in a pinch you can use a table-knife or a dime, because this slot will be designed to be large enough to accommodate either. The point here is simple – innovate with the user in mind.
You might have noticed the Bell Curve diagram at the bottom of the sketch. We’ll explore that in the next post. Until then, take care!
We’re all familiar with “corporate-speak”, e.g.
Like cliches, these phrases have a foundation of truth: there’s nothing wrong with synergy and teamwork and working smarter. The problem is that the phrases become thoughtless short-hand for complex processes that actually require attention and discipline. In the area of innovation the worst corporate-speak offender is “We have to think/step/get out of the box”. Again, there’s nothing wrong with the basic sentiment, but if you’ve ever been involved in a brainstorming session that ran out of energy and ideas within 15 minutes of marker-hitting-flipchart then you know that it is easier said then done.
The title Innovation in a Box is an obvious provocation, but it recognizes a couple of, uhhh, boxy things about innovation:
The three points are connected. If our goal is to enable individuals, teams and organizations to be more effective at Innovation, then we need to provide them with the knowledge, tools and skills necessary to identify, generate and implement solutions by building on their existing strengths. This blog, the Innovation in a Box Graphic Guide (see below), and the In a Box Program are all designed to do this.
We’ll build on these three ideas in greater detail over the next several blog-posts.
Also, new to this post is a feature called “Innovation of the Day”. It’s based on the belief that there are very few areas of our lives that would not benefit by innovation and better design. Today’s example is the humble pick-axe. I’m in the midst of landscaping my back garden, and have been using an old-pickaxe to loosen up the ground. Although it has a definite nostalgic appeal, it’s certainly not ergonomic – hard on the back and jarring on the joints. This sketch is a quick concept drawing and if you happen to be in the tool business feel free to build it. I would appreciate it if you sent me a prototype however, because this promises to be a multi year project.
Enjoy your day!
Welcome to this test post – which also happens to be the first post of the Innovation in a Box blog.
We’re still getting things settled behind the scenes, and part of that is experimenting with the first post. We also wanted to send out Chapter 3 of the 
graphic guide Innovation in a Box, and since it mentions this blog we figured there should be something here if you happened to hit the link.
The main purpose of this blog will be to support the development, design, and ongoing publication of Innovation in a Box. I’m not completely sure what that means at this point, but will probably consist mostly of “footnotes” to the main text. For instance in Chapter 3 there is a brief foray into thinking preferences. We’ll take that further in the blog. I’ll also try to pepper it with real-world examples that support the book. And of course this is a forum for comments - I’ll be floating “ideas in progress” here, and would welcome your feedback. Since the book is graphic, a good portion of the content will be graphic as well. More opportunities to draw, and since it’s a blog perhaps an opportunity to draw a bit more freely. I’m looking forward to both of those aspects.
Finally, if you just happened across this randomly, without knowing anything about us, the blog, or the book – you can hit one of the links below to find out more.
