Jack Hipple, Innovation-TRIZ Tampa, FL jwhinnovator@earthlink innovation-triz

1. The Personality Issues in Leading Innovation: Yours and Others!University of TampaHuman Resources Institute2/9/06 Jack Hipple, Innovation-TRIZ Tampa, FL jwhinnovator@earthlink.net www.innovation-triz.com

2. INNOVATION’S THE “NEW” HOT THING! Ranking in IRI surveys… “Fuzzy Front End” conferences sold out… Entire Business Week issues… Fortune sections…. But…..

3. WE JUST GOT THROUGH “SIX SIGMATIZING” EVERYTHING!! From standardization, no variation, no deviation, to new business and products….and now we want new and different Back to the future……anyone remember the same emphasis in the 1980’s and early to mid 90’s?

4. YOU’VE HAD ENDLESS MEETINGS TO DISCUSS THIS NEW CHALLENGE….

5. YOU HAVE DREAMS OF SUCCESS…………

6. YOU’RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST AND THE TIME FOR SUCCESS….

7. AND YOU KNOW HOW RISKY THIS JOURNEY MAY BE….

8. AND YOU DON’T WANT TO FAIL AT THIS RISKY NEW VENTURE, DO YOU?

9. YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT ALONE IN THIS JOURNEY----HOW YOU WILL GAIN A STRATEGIC EDGE….????

10. WE’RE HERE TO HELP YOU THE SECOND TIME AROUND….

11. WHY AM I CONCERNED? • Innovation Network Survey, fall 2004, new innovation leaders in medium to large companies: • 71% said they had no metrics for their position • 60% of them have innovation as part of their mission/job objectives • 67% are allowed to work on “new” concepts for their company (“new” is not defined) • 68% have no well defined innovation process within their company • 54% have no working definition of innovation • Same kind of input from 2005 Innovation Network conference: we know it’s important, but……..

12. MISSION, NO OBJECTIVESNO GOAL DEFINITION, NO METRICSBUTPART OF RESPONSIBILITYRESULT: WE’LL DO THE BEST WE CAN!!

13. MIGHT WE HAVE SOME OF THE ANSWERS ALREADY….AND FORGOTTEN THEM? THE AMI STUDY: FAILED INNOVATION PROGRAMS (AND CHAMPIONS!) IN FORTUNE 500: 1980-1995:ALL EXTINCT(Published in 3 different publications)

14. ASSOCIATION FOR MANAGERS OF INNOVATION (AMI) STUDY • AMI: A subset of the Center for Creative Leadership; 30-50 private sector innovation leaders and selected consultants • Study the phenomenon of loss of “innovation” leadership positions in the late 1990’s after a 15 year surge in interest • A people analysis of what happened

15. WE ENDED THE PROGRAMS AND “DOWNSIZED” THE INNOVATORS

16. THOSE THAT LEFT EVENTUALLY BECAME CONSULTANTS, JOINED STARTUP VENTURES, RETIRED, OR STARTED TOTALLY NEW CAREERS

17. Desi DeSimone, ex CEO, 3M “Why did you get into a position that you had to lay off a bunch of people? How come you’re so smart now that you’ve laid off a bunch of people?” Fortune, 1985!!!!!!!

18. Hamel and Prahalad “Few companies seem to have asked themselves what is the opportunity cost of the hundreds of millions--or even billions-- of dollars that have been written off for re-engineering and restructuring. What if all that “redundant” brain power had been applied to creating tomorrow’s markets? Far from being a tribute to senior management’s steely resolve or far-sightedness, a large restructuring and re-engineering charge is simply the penalty that a company must pay for not having anticipated the future” …Competing for the Future

19. IN ADDITION, THE INNOVATORS LEARNED THAT JUST BEING INNOVATIVE WAS NOT ENOUGH

20. THEY LEARNED THAT THEIR GOALS MUST BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS

21. LEARNINGS FROM AMI STUDY • Significant differences between “styles” of innovation champions and “norm” around them • KAI™ and Myers Briggs Type Indicator™ analyses can help assess • Personal learnings and experiences--what would be done differently? MOST CORPORATE LEADERS ARE DIFFERENT ANIMALS THAN INNOVATORS: THIS IS A FACT—HOW SHOULD WE DEAL WITH THAT FACT? KAI is a registered trademark of M.J. Kirton Myers Briggs Type Indicator is a registered trademark of CPP, Inc.

22. FINDINGSExtrovert vs. IntrovertSensor vs. iNtuitorThinker vs. FeelerJudger vs. PerceiverI.e. an ESTJ vs. INFP • Innovators are “N’s” and managers are “S’s” • Intuition, gut feel, instinct, possibilities VS. • Facts, data, analysis, results vs. plan

23. EXAMPLES…. • “We need to do things differently in this company…” • Does this mean get into an entirely new business, make an acquisition? • Does this mean we need to process existing orders more efficiently? • “We need some new products…” • Within the same product line? • Replace the product line? • Buy another company? • License a technology for making a new product?

24. THE KIRTON KAI™ • A well established assessment instrument that measures the style, not capability of an individual’s problem solving • Strongly adoptive/analogic/structured to “out of the box”, unstructured, disconnected • “Number” from 32-160, average of 90 +/- 20 (2σ), including most corporate managers • Sub-numbers relating to unfiltered idea generation, rules and procedure respect/need, and visibility (to others) of problem solving/analysis paradigm

25. IMPACT OF KAI™ DELTAS….. A range of feedback from 32-160, extremely adoptive, filtering, incremental vs. out of the box, no analysis, major change • Replacing vs. improving • Reaction to internal vs. external threats • Appreciation for detail • “Right” vs. risk • Quantity vs. quality of ideas; filtration

26. KAI™ DISTRIBUTION NORM

27. CONFLICT—WHO IS TO BLAME?

28. ACCEPTANCE OF PERSON AND THEIR IDEAS DISLIKE IGNORE SABOTAGE ATTITUDE TOWARD PERSON SUPPORT ENCOURAGE HELP LIKE HIGH LOW Source: Charlie Prather NOVELTY OF IDEA

29. ACCEPTANCE OF IDEA EQUIVOCALITY HIGH LOW MOTIVATION DISTANCE BLACK HOLE GRAND SLAM DEAD IN THE WATER LONG SHOT HIGH LOW COMMUNICATION Source: National Center for Mfg Sciences Study

30. ONE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM……

31. THE MORE LIKELY OUTCOME……

32. RECENT PERSONNEL TRENDS • Dramatic decline in loyalty, downsizings • Increased specialization • “Temporary” assignments and more rapid turnover • No one works for anyone, except themselves Impact Capturing and broadening of intellectual property (not just patents, but “know how”) much more important AND difficult Loyalty ain’t what it used to be!

33. ANOTHER DRAMATIC CHANGE….EVERYBODY KNOWS EVERYTHING—INSTANTLY!—IT’S WHAT YOU DO WITH IT THAT’S IMPORTANT GENERATING COST OF INFORMATION Source: Jim Palmer, P&G DISSEMINATING TIME

34. HOW SHOULD WE DO IT RIGHT--IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL SENSE?HOW CAN YOU HELP?

35. “Money isn’t everything…..but it’s right up there with oxygen” Rita Davenport, Entrepreneur

36. Peter Drucker, 1982 “Innovative companies do not start out with a research budget. They end with one. They start out by determining how much innovation is needed for the business to stay even. They assume that all existing products, services, and markets are becoming obsolete--and pretty fast at that. They try to assess the probable speed of decay of whatever exists, and then determine the “gap” which innovation has to fill for the company not to go downhill. They know that their program must include promises several times the “innovation gap”, for more than a third of such promises--if that many-- ever becomes reality. And then they know how much of an innovation effort--and how large the innovative budget--they need as the very minimum” DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO ESTABLISH AN INNOVATION BUDGET AS PERCENT OF LAST YEAR’S OR AS A PERCENT OF SALES?

37. OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES • Identification and early assessment • Start early, fail early • The B-2 (Former Congressman and budget committee chairman John Kasich on Larry King); New monomer at Dow • “Six months in the lab will save you at least an hour in the library” • Use new forecasting techniques, talk to competitors of your customers—what will replace them • The Nine Box Analysis • Lines and Patterns of Evolution from patent studies

38. Hamel and Prahalad “Slimming down the workforce and cutting back on investment are less intellectually demanding for top management than discovering ways to grow output on a static or only slowing growing resource base…..Managers and operational improvement consultants must ask themselves just how much of the efficiency problem they’re working on. If their view of “efficiency” encompasses only the denominator, if they don’t have a view of resource leverage that addresses the numerator, they have no better than half a chance of achieving and sustaining world class efficiency”

39. PERSONAL CHALLENGES FOR INNOVATION CHAMPIONS • Recognize that you are most likely to be “N” (intuitive) vs. an “S” (sensing”) which characterizes over 80% of corporate management • You will be very comfortable with vague, broadly shaped exciting opportunities without necessarily being specific about sales, profit dollars, and timing • Those who are funding your effort, as excited as they may be about new stuff, will quickly want to know who is going to buy the new stuff, when they will start buying, what it will compete with, how much the plant will cost, and when it can start producing • As you progress in this role, follow one of the well established quality rules and know what your customer wants---and frame your “gut feels” into hard data. If you need help to do this, get it!

40. INNOVATOR CHALLENGES…… • Your “problem solving” style is likely to be unstructured and not obvious to those around you, especially those in corporate management. This is your problem to deal with, not theirs • They are the ones who will have to commit large sums of money at risk and it is important for you to recognize this. • Studies show it is likely that the difference between your KAI profile and that of corporate management around you is close to 35-45 points, setting up a potentially significant communication gap in the area of technical opportunity definition and the perceived need for hard data and analysis, group focus, etc. Again, this is your problem to deal with • Clearly explain how your data and information supports your ideas and conclusions, focus your meeting and communication processes. Again, if you need help to do this, find an adaptive KAI person and gain their insights. Study what these differences imply and use these differences pro-actively

41. THE RULES HAVE CHANGED • Need both inside-out and outside-in thinking • Though the days of “here’s what I have or can make, now go sell it” are long gone, it is important to have external driving forces and current customer input balanced by: • considering what opportunities exist to expand the commercial impact of existing core competencies • Talking with potential customers who might replace your current customers • It is critical to understand the levels of use and integration above and below your product line for excellence in innovation

42. LET’S NOT GO DOWN IN THE SECOND ROUND OF SERIOUS INNOVATION……..