INNOVATION BACKWARDS?
Currently accepted wisdom: An invention is different from an innovation at any time, as it does not have commercial value.
Q1: How do you a get a group of entrepreneurs to focus on innovation?
Q2: How do you get the invention(s) to actually become innovations (ie: make money)?
Q3: How do you get the group to buy into one person’s vision? (yours)?
Q4: Can this backwards model really work? Or is it really backwards?
The set up for these questions is not your medium or large sized corporation with those much talked about ‘silos’ where many of you struggle to introduce innovation; but a small start up company with a group of entrepreneurs who have created several inventions, with working models, and obvious interest from several markets and customer “must have” indicators. And they’re out of money 
You, the business consultant, or potential CEO, are retained (for equity pay) to help the company find money; in other words, take what seems like complete chaos to any normal investor and make the ‘start up’ into a real business and an attractive investment. We assume in our scenario that there are strong indications of correct timing and market acceptance, yet no real formal market research has been implemented. We also assume you are hooked on making the start up a success by turning the invention(s) into something with commercial value. This has been a process of inventing something(s) and then finding , or hoping to find the market (or making the market), rather than analyzing what the market needs and then creating the product(s) to fit the need(s) and solve the pain….backwards?
I would like to know from the #innochat participants: how would “you” answer the above questions and any others you might think of? Also, anyone in the chat, or anyone who has experience in this area; please feel free to comment ahead of time, or join us in one of the most enlightening ‘innovative’ chats on twitter. @Renee_Hopkinswill moderate. August 19th 9AM PST (NOON EST)
CASUDI
PS: What is a customer “must have” indicator?
ADDITIONAL READING
Image from “The Global Small Business blog ” with thanks.
August 13th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Suggested viewing: http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2097
very interesting program series, and Tom Kelley is a new personal mentor for me. We recently put together a design summit for our designers revolving around the topics of creativity and innovation. We relied heavily on Mr. Kelley’s discussions as well as conversations from several other speakers here: http://ecorner.stanford.edu/search.html?keywords=innovation&x=0&y=0
August 15th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
There a lot of issues here! However, I’d start with your third question first. Without a common vision, it doesn’t really matter if the invention/innovation is viable. A startup with no money needs to have each group member ready to contribute to a common cause. What story is the leader of this startup telling the group? People buy into a vision if there is a compelling story. Basically, the story would focus on how this innovation/invention will change the world or change lives.
I tend to be practical in my coaching with entrepreneurial small business owners. I’d want to know who is the leader, what is the current plan, who is responsible for each task, and what deadlines are on the horizon. It may seem unsexy but without a plan it would be difficult to for the leader to direct the best actions that connect with the intended market, potential investors, or media (online and/or offline).
There are other gaps here (e.g. leadership, group cohesion)but I don’t want my comment to turn into a tome. It’s an interesting scenario.
August 15th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Thanks for commenting Fishead; always a pleasure to have the comments conversations with you!
Great mentor David Kelly; my biz partner met him during the 80′s. Many similarities in James’s design universe:-) Thanks for the link, I recommend it to the participants of our chat, and if you have the time, please join us?
Elli; from your comment, I can see you have certainly coached a non-focused leader/visionary from time to time to pull things together. Yet my question (and maybe I wasn’t clear in Q3); was how would you the consultant or business coach, pull a group of inventors together and get them to focus on planning; maybe focus on bringing one invention to market (to make money)? In your opinion, what is the key ingredient you need to put in the mix to begin the innovation process, and have the group buy into it? I always enjoy conversation with you, no matter where we run into each other! Thanks for commenting.
August 16th, 2010 at 7:17 am
Part of your answer is in your response. Focus on one invention. There are a lot of steps to bring an idea to market. They take time and energy so trying to manage more than one is a recipe for stress and procrastination.
Does this group of inventors work together on a regular basis? The key ingredient is group cohesion. It sounds pretty basic but I’d like to have a conversation (time limited meeting) with the group of inventors with the goal of deciding to create the team. What do they want? What does that look/sound/feel like? How much sweat equity are each of them willing to put in? After that conversation, you know how much the group has bought into the process and the invention/innovation. Also importantly, who is the leader and what leadership style does this person exhibit? The decision to create the team (or not) will save a lot of time and frustration. If the decision is to create the team, then the team (with guidance) can develop the plan to build the business.
As you know from our past conversations, I have such curiosity and many questions. Building from the ground up needs these questions, even if they seem basic or unimportant. It’s not the technical abilities of these inventors that will make the business possible. It’s their ability to cooperate, plan, imagine, debate, and act as a unit.
August 16th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Q1: I’m getting steadily more convinced about the importance of values as the rallying point for business teams. People need to believe in the underlying value – and I’m not talking about money, or bargains, but common human values – of what they’re doing. Think of your own experience, how you’ve seen businesses rally around shared values like cleaning up the environment, helping people, and solving problems in any number of ways. Sure, there are other proven ways, with buzz, with rewards, with quality circles and carrots and sticks of lots of different shapes and sizes … and a lot of obvious group behaviors to stimulate and encourage innovation have to help … but in the end, if you look at one factor that seems to make a lot of difference, in a normal group, it’s believing in the importance of the quest.
Innovation to achieve a better world. Sounds cheesy and artificial, but look at what happens to companies selling organic local healthy product, for example. I think what’s going on is that the human impetus of innovation doesn’t happen as a task or a project like a new website or an email campaign; it’s something that has to percolate in the back of people’s minds. And that takes believing that it’s important.
Q2: This question is about the difference between ideas and opportunities. You need a filtering process. You start with all of the inventions (ideas) at the top of the filter, then run through a filter of underlying need, market, costs, resources required, potential revenues, people and team requirements, return on investment … and what comes out, after the filter is done, are the potentially money-making innovations (opportunities). So what’s the filter? The business planning process, well executed. Not that big scary document you’ve heard about and probably fear, but a simple, practical collection of blocks or modules, just big enough to work, just enough to break the uncertainty down into component parts.
Q3: I think this goes right back to my answer to question one: make the original problem something people can believe matters. Without that, then we’re in a jungle of case-by-case and on the other hands, because then it’s leadership, and leadership is as diverse in style as the world is diverse in people.
Q4: I don’t understand why this is backwards. Rally around a problem, come up with alternative solutions, filter them, choose, and then implement. Maybe I’m oversimplifying. I’m looking at some very good comments on this topic so far, and expecting more. It’s a very interesting topic.
.-= Tim Berry´s last blog ..iPhone- Luvya and All That- but Couldya Clean This Up =-.
August 17th, 2010 at 8:25 am
Elli, great comment and right on, but I would like to add something which IMO is most pertinent to that first meeting with the group. My initial focus in that first meeting (I was going to bring this up in the chat for sure) is to ask the entrepreneur inventors if they really want to create a company; they pay lip service to the concept but do they really want to have a successful business model and do what it takes for their invention(s), their dreams, their solutions to actually make money? That’s so basic and sometimes the real answer after delving deeper & explaining some of the (does not need to be complex) process, is “no” by one or several of the group and they actually confess they just want to invent cool stuff, be a sort of MIT Media lab; others are willing to commit and it’s a huge (and can be great fun) commitment as you know. Onward from there.
Having just written the above, Tim’s comment arrived, clarifying so much of the process we go through working with entrepreneurs and Start up companies, and expanding so well on the value proposition we all need to make it happen
Thanks so much for sharing so much of your expertise in just one comment. Rather then writing an epistle in return, I’ll note that you really got what I intended by INNOVATION BACKWARDS? I don’t really think it is backwards from our space, yet so much of the discussion I both listen to and participate in, is large corporate innovation and from that perspective you will find during #innochat that I have it backwards!
Cheers to you both and hope to see you on #innochat
August 18th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Caroline,
I’d agree with Tim, I don’t think it’s backwards at all Still, given the fact pattern, the case does present some interesting challenges. Sadly, I’ll be at a funeral and on the road, so I’ll have to mine the transcript. In the interim, here are some thoughts.
Q1 – Entrepreneurs, particularly ones who want to create cool stuff, can be reached by appealing to their “narrow self-interest,” their WIIFM. Once they understand the steps in the commercialization process, and how there might be some commonality of interest in pooling ideas and talent, most can be enlisted in the cause (if they see participating, even subordinating their ideas, to more advanced concepts initially as a way to sponsor their work, most can be brought along, even getting them to participate to some degree in the common good). The CEO must have a deft hand to pull it off as it is much like herding cats.
Q2 – Once enlisted, they must be put into a competitive mode – who goes first must be decided, after all. This can be accomplished by putting them in a shared “innovation session” whereby all the group’s ideas can be explored in a non-critical environment. After the session, cross pollination has begun and there is frequently a genuine sharing, though not always. Post-session, the CEO introduces the notion of criteria for who gets to go first. Criteria include: can we make it? can we sell it? to whom? how many? and, who’s going to champion it among the group?
Q3 – The buy-in comes with the stated, or implied, promise that IF the concept of working together is going to be successful (and I agree with Tim that buying into the vision/cause is key)and that some will go first and “subsidize” the way for the rest, then the seeds of greatness are sown. Again, craft and agility in balancing competing notions on the part of the CEO will make all the difference. And it doesn’t always work.
Q4 – Again, it’s not backwards, it’s merely a process logic approach. It does rely heavily, though, on the skill of the CEO and the trust s/he can engender among the participants in the adventure.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:22 am
Caroline…Many thanks for the invitation to participate in your innovation chat today! I have an appointment and won’t be able to attend live, but will loop back later to view comments.
In the meantime, here are some thoughts re Q2. It’s crucial for any inventor or entrepreneur to have a solid idea of what customer needs are addressed by his/her invention. By understanding and voicing these needs as part of your pitch or business plan, it’s possible to build a case for market size, target audience, and funding requirements for launch.
Needs are often confused with “wants.” To help differentiate between the two, ask: “What jobs that my prospective customer wants to do are made easier, faster, or perhaps even eliminated by my invention?” (Consider how the Swiffer eliminated the standard mop…)
Thomas Edison was a master at determining customer needs, and discerning how his technologies could uniquely satisfy these. In some instances, he actually went on location to homes or businesses to watch people in action. This helped him identify nuances of usage that often guided refinements to his inventions. So “watching customers in action” can offer another way for your group to align inventions with practical usage. This in turn helps an invention make that big leap to an innovation.
Wishing you a great session today!
August 19th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
haah–too much to read these days. This is one of the blogfeeds I’m tracking, they talk a lot about some of the questions you are asking…
http://innovateonpurpose.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-to-become-better-innovator.html
August 19th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
[...] chats, and hope to be asked to do more. My most recent post was for this week’s #innochat INNOVATION BACKWARDS? I posted four questions for the chat and a “set up” scenario; so instead of giving my solutions [...]