Innovation Process Design: Overcoming Common Missteps by HUMANTIFIC

WHITE PAPERS

Humantific

The ReReThinking Series

Innovation Process Design: Overcoming Common Missteps By GK VanPatter Co-Founder, Humantific

In our recently authored Innovation Methods Mapping book, we conducted an architectural analysis of fifty innovation process models spanning an 80+ year period. Building on that work we wanted to share with friends of Humantific some lessons learned in reference to innovation process assessment and design. With marketplace interest in cocreation continuing to rise, what we are seeing today is that some organizations set out to master, adopt or adapt an existing innovation approach and others seek to create one internally. While the research shows that there is no one perfect way to create an effective innovation, cocreation approach, there is a growing body of knowledge spanning many decades, from which we can draw insights. Without this historical awareness, typical missteps tend to occur as wheels are reinvented and already - transcended, historical missteps are repeated. Methodology missteps can be costly and undermine positive energy around innovation in any organization. www.humantific.com

WHITE PAPERS

Humantific

The ReReThinking Series

Ten Common Innovation Method Design Missteps The first step in overcoming missteps is to be aware that they exist! Each requires a different kind of attention and all are fixable if there is recognition of need.

1. Out of Sync Challenge Definitions Often seen in misstep innovation models is an odd sequencing of challenge definition, placing this activity before facts, before insights. In such models the participants are magically supposed to know what the challenges are before insight creation or fact-finding has occurred. This defies common sense logic, but it happens in many process models. If you define the challenges before generating the facts and insights, it is likely that challenges will need to be redefined afterwards, causing considerable procedural confusion. In applied creativity (CPS) the starting point is understood to be a fuzzy situation, not a defined problem. How to fix this: Deepen knowledge of innovation methods history and historical sequencing. A lot of knowledge regarding sequencing already exists!

If you define the challenges before generating the facts and insights, it is likely that challenges will need to be redefined afterwards, causing considerable procedural confusion.

2. Preconceived Solution Paths Innovation methods designed for product and service creation tend to have automatic presumptions built in that what’s needed is more products and / or services, that these will automatically be outcomes. Such assumptions might be perfect in narrowly defined contexts, and not suitable in contexts where more broadly defined challenges and possibilities exist. Since many challenges facing organizations today have nothing to do with products or services, we counsel understanding the difference between a method containing preconceived outcome paths and one where the challenge and the solution path possibilities are open. The misstep is confusing one with the other. For broadly framed strategic work, open paths are needed. How to fix this: Deepen knowledge of process differences. Select on basis of understanding what is “under the hood.”

www.humantific.com

WHITE PAPERS

Humantific

The ReReThinking Series

3. Missing Meta Process Often seen in internal innovation capacity building initiatives is the assumption that assembling an encyclopedia of innovation techniques is the equivalent to a robust innovation methodology. In our view, this is just not so. Anyone can assemble a techniques encyclopedia. Having a meta method to enable multiple participant orchestration is much more important than any technique. Without a well thought through visual meta method that spans the entire innovation cycle and connects to your innovation strategy as well as to your work force it is unlikely that advanced levels of innovation skill will be achieved. Today most forms of cross-disciplinary work, not only require an externalized meta framework, but deep knowledge regarding how to apply it in various innovation contexts. How to fix this: Deepen knowledge of meta process design beyond techniques assembly. A lot of knowledge regarding meta innovation processes already exists.

4. Missing Separation of Content from Process Often missing inside misstep method models is separation of content knowledge from process knowledge. We counsel awareness that one is not the other. These are very different roles. In applied creativity methodologies, this awareness is a given, as it enables deep expertise in both content and process to be present in different roles. Many organizations have high content (subject matter) knowledge and low levels of innovation process knowledge. Facilitation leadership is based in deep process, not content knowledge. This separation and distinction allows innovation process leaders to help others in many different kinds of contexts within one organization, or across many.

Anyone can assemble a techniques encyclopedia. Having a meta method to enable multiple participant orchestration is much more important than any technique.

How to fix this: Deepen knowledge of innovation roles in the context of complex problem solving and cocreation.

www.humantific.com

WHITE PAPERS

Humantific

The ReReThinking Series

5. Missing Behaviors Interconnected to the absence of content and process separation in misstep methods is often the missing element of behaviors. Behavior orchestration has a long history in applied creativity (CPS). With today’s huge interest in multiple participant cocreation and collaboration, behaviors have become critically important. Behavior synchronization is a key ingredient in any robust methodology-based, innovation-culture-building initiative. Leading practices are already linking behaviors to innovation strategy and organizational values. How to fix this: Deepen knowledge of the role of behaviors in innovation project cycles and in innovation capacity building.

6. Missing Robust Challenge Framing Among the most important ingredients often missing in misstep methods is robust challenge framing. Just assuming that challenges are known, and the relationships between them clear, is no longer robust enough. Being able to frame challenges and place them in context is a key skill of any organizational leader today. Challenge framing has a long history in applied creativity (CPS) and its continuously being added to and improved upon. Mastery of challenge framing is among the most important tools in any innovation leader’s toolbox.

With today’s huge interest in multiple participant cocreation and collaboration, behaviors have become critically important.

How to fix this: Deepen knowledge of Challenge Mapping– when, where, why and how it occurs within the innovation cycle.

7. Missing Visual SenseMaking While leading firms have been integrating data and information into the innovation process for years, this part of the equation is, not surprisingly, often missing from methods. Using only words and numbers to solve problems and explain solutions, rather than words, numbers and pictures, significantly foreshortens the viewing lens and certainly the possible outcomes. Today sensemaking is being recognized as a key 21st century leadership navigation skill. Add visual sensemaking into the mix, and you expand the uptake and the outcome possibilities considerably. Leading firms have already integrated visual sensemaking into the innovation process.

www.humantific.com

WHITE PAPERS

Humantific

The ReReThinking Series

How to fix this: Deepen knowledge of what Visual SenseMaking is, what others are using it for and how to integrate it into organizational learning.

8. Missing Process Balance Often in misstep methods we see that the emphasis within the process is based not on what the organization needs, but rather on the process creator’s own thinking preferences. This projection is likely to create a method that is imbalanced in one direction or another, and, thus, it cannot be made to represent the organization’s view of innovation. Personal projection methods tend to not work well in broader organizational contexts. It is important to get individual thinking bias out of innovation methodology design and innovation strategy. Leading firms are already working with Think-Balance tools to ensure balance in method design and in strategy design. How to fix this: Deepen knowledge of Think-Balance and its role in innovation culture building, connecting to value systems.

Understanding that all human adults have cognitive/ thinking preferences/ styles is important in training of any methodology.

9. Missing Cognitive Surfacing Often missing from misstep methods is understanding of the basic mechanics of what has become known as cognitive surfacing. Understanding that all human adults have cognitive/thinking preferences/styles is important in training of any methodology. Visually surfacing the cognitive preferences of the learning participants is an important milestone in any leading innovation skill-building program. Without that surfacing, you have a list of techniques unconnected to user’s thinking styles. Leading practices not only have practical experience of cognitive surfacing, they also have ongoing research around this important dimension of innovation. How to fix this: Deepen knowledge of thinking/cognitive preferences and how transparency of preferences interconnects with innovation enabling.

www.humantific.com

WHITE PAPERS

Humantific

The ReReThinking Series

10. Missing Culture Connections Often missing in method design is connection to broader cultural considerations of innovation - what we call the “organizational brain fit”. Innovation method design is not just about making an abstract drawing of steps or assembling techniques. Its about understanding the role of innovation process in designing and deciding what kind of culture you want to create in your organization; deciding what you want to value. Without this knowledge, innovation method creation can become dumbed down to the point of being unconnected to your culture and irrelevant in the minds of your employees. You will end up with a form of drive-by innovation that is neither effective nor sustainable. Leading firms are already interconnecting organizational values with innovation visions, strategies, methods, behaviors, and action outcomes. Method alone will not an innovation culture make. How to fix this: Deepen knowledge of how innovation method is just one building block in innovation culture building.

Leading firms are already interconnecting organizational values with innovation visions, strategies, methods, behaviors, and action outcomes.

NOTE: We use Humantific’s Innovation Method Assessment Framework to view all kinds of innovation-related models, techniques, processes, strategies, and initiatives. If you have any questions regarding process assessment in your organization or if you would like to be placed on the preorder list for Innovation Methods Mapping, the book, feel free to send an email to: methodsmapping@humantific.com