HOW TO SURVIVE AS A CORPORATE INNOVATION CHAMPION American Creativity Association March 14, 2003

1. HOW TO SURVIVE AS A CORPORATE INNOVATION CHAMPIONAmerican Creativity AssociationMarch 14, 2003 Jack Hipple, Innovation-TRIZ Tampa, FL jwhinnovator@earthlink.net www.innovation-triz.com

2. QUESTIONS ARE YOU AN INNOVATION CHAMPION? IN WHAT CONTEXT? HAVE YOU SURVIVED? DO YOU WANT TO BE ONE? WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO TO SUCCEED?

3. MBTI/16 Types/KAI/BCPI KNOWLEDGE OF INSTRUMENTS PROFILES

4. Corporations are constantly looking for inventions, acquisitions, collaborations, and processes which can allow them to grow at a rate faster than the GDP of the country/world--and faster than their competitors! Many unsuccessful attempts have been made to sustain internal efforts to support these goals--nearly all have been terminated (sometimes restarted years later!) These efforts have spent HUNDREDS of millions of dollars! Perception that there are untapped ideas within the organization Even perceived “successes” have seen downsizings eventually What/where are the learnings as we start the cycle all over again? I. WHY IS THIS TOPIC IMPORTANT?

5. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? • Previous leaders of these programs, for the most part, are in successful consulting businesses or start-up companies--major corporations have lost them--probably forever • Their clients frequently include ex-employers! • Learnings? It seems we are starting all over again!

6. THE AMI STUDY

7. ASSOCIATION FOR MANAGERS OF INNOVATION (AMI) • An informal group of 50 innovators, most of whom have (had) responsibility for innovation programs within large companies, government agencies, or non-profits • Meets twice yearly (once at a Center for Creative Leadership location, once at company location) with outside stimulus speakers and sharing of experiences • Active since 1986 and still going strong • Sponsored by Stan Gryskiewiecz at CCL

8. AN OBSERVATION WAS MADE….. • A large percentage of corporate innovation managers had become consultants or joined start-ups, after downsizings and early retirements • These were usually associated with termination of the function • With further passage of time, the percentage rose more, with 15 people (out of 30-40 active members) identified • Note: trend has continued

9. AMI DECIDED TO….. • Survey and study this phenomenon • Jack Hipple, Innovation-TRIZ • David Hardy, Bank of Montreal • Steve Wilson, Eastman Chemical • James Michalski, Eastman Chemical • See if there were any learnings that could be shared • Publish if possible

10. RESULTS • Study completed in late 2000 • Publication complete • Chemical Innovation, 11/01 • Leaders in Action, 5/02 • Research Technology Management, Spring ‘03 • Presentation at World Future Society (7/01), CPSI meeting (6/02), Innovation Network (9/02) and today • Input to Harvard Business review article on innovation • Results can be shared anonymously • Findings significant • Additional data is supportive (5)

11. LEARNINGS FROM STUDY • Significant differences between “styles” of innovation champions and “norm” around them • KAI™ and Myers Briggs analyses can help assess • Personal learnings and experiences--what would be done differently? KAI is a registered trademark of M.J. Kirton

12. STUDIES AND INSTRUMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT

13. MYERS-BRIGGS • A tool which measures our “style” of social interaction and how we analyze external information • Extraverted/introverted (E/I) • Sensing/intuition (S/N) • Thinking/feeling (T/F) • Perceiving/judging (P/J) • 16 possible combinations • Ex: ESTJ, INTP • Not equally likely • The world is 75% E’s, 75% S’s

14. MYERS BRIGGS • 90% of innovation champs were “NT’s” • Less than 10% of the population are “NT’s” • >80% of corporate senior managers are “ST’s”, typically ESTJ’s • This sets up major potential conflict

15. IMPACT OF MBTI DELTAS • Change always seems bigger to an “ST” than an “NT” • “NT’s” are more comfortable with change in general • If desired change is not defined clearly, conflicts will result

16. EXAMPLES…. • “We need to do different things 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?

17. A COMPANY CAN HAVE A CULTURE…. • SJ---Likes stage gates, continuous improvement teams • NJ---Likes targeted breakthroughs • SP---Continuous improvement, bottoms up • NP---Internal venturing, sustaining ideas

18. THE KAI™ INSTRUMENT KAI is a registered trademark of M.J. Kirton

19. WHAT KAI MEASURES • Myers Briggs measures how people relate to each other • KAI measures how people relate to problems--their problem solving style • Instrument sub-scales measure originality, rule/group conformity, and efficiency

20. THE INSTRUMENT • A 32 question assessment with a range of responses • Range of score, 32-160 (32 questions X (1-5) response • 15-20 minutes to complete • Highly validated across many areas and cultures globally • Dr. Michael Kirton, Occupational Research Centre, Hatfield Polytechnic Institute, England • Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN

21. THE INSTRUMENT • Measures how we relate to “problems” and the problem solving environment vs. how we relate to people • “Norm” of population is around 90 with the majority of people in the 70-120 range (highly adaptive to highly innovative)

22. KAI DIFFERENCES • Managerial “norm” is 95 • Total norm around 90 • Average of innovation champs was 135 • Friction visible with differentials of 10-15 • Warfare visible with differentials of 30+

23. KAI DISTRIBUTION NORM

24. IMPACT OF KAI DELTAS….. • Replacing vs. improving • Reaction to internal vs. external threats • Appreciation for detail • “Right” vs. risk

25. OTHER TOOLS • Alternative tools for evaluation • BCPI • 16 Types • Gatehouse Alliance Discovery/Insights

26. WHAT DO WE DO IN THESE CASES? DISLIKE ATTITUDE TOWARD PERSON LIKE HIGH LOW Source: Charlie Prather NOVELTY OF IDEA

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

28. WHAT HAPPENS TO IDEAS? EQUIVOCALITY HIGH LOW MOTIVATION DISTANCE HIGH LOW COMMUNICATION Source: National Center for Mfg Sciences Study

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. UNANSWERED QUESTION If less “different” people were put in these assignments, what would have happened? What do you think?

31. WHAT’S BEEN TRIED? • A specially funded “enterprise”, usually under the umbrella of the R&D organization • Funding usually (but not always) outside the control of existing business units and sometimes at the expense of these existing businesses • Sometimes combined with other corporate initiatives in acquisitions or venture capital efforts • Sometimes minimally funded for support staff only--”can’t fund and can’t say no”---primary responsibility was encouragement, moral support, and guidance • Programs sometimes focused around a unique physical facility • Leadership of program frequently in the hands of one key senior leader

32. WHAT WORKED • Ideas were stimulated and new businesses were started • R&D personnel were allowed to explore outside their normal focus area • Special meetings, demonstrations, exercises highlighted the importance of the activity and demonstrated support • New tools and techniques were introduced

33. PERSONAL LEARNINGSFROM STUDY • Broader support and involvement beyond one executive (especially one near retirement age!)--don’t depend on the energy and drive of one person • Top level support • Understand political and business cultures, recognize you may be a threat to someone • More education on role of innovation • Succession planning • Treat as a business process • Use the “coin of the realm” in discussions and planning • Corporate, not a research process • Marketing/commercial involvement and support • Share successes AND failures • Share process successes

34. WHAT DIDN’T WORK • Ideas, in general, were not integrated with complete corporate business structure and environment • New business $ not at the rate desired • Ignorance of the amount of effort and investment required to change the corporate climate and/or business • Business/commercial involvement after the fact caused priority conflicts and resentment • Virtually no involvement of the sales/marketing organization • Time horizons and impact poorly estimated • Narrow and individual sponsorship • “get the bandit on board the train”----Charlie Prather • Lack of skill training

35. CONSEQUENCES • Subtle forms of sabotage • Corruption of funding process • Lack of staying power during economic downturns • Program “died” with the loss of sponsor • Maybe this wasn’t such a good idea after all • Uneven skill and tool training produced uneven results across an organization

36. SABOTAGE AND CORRUPTION • Funding of “normal” business projects under the innovation umbrella • “Perceived” innovation funding greater than actual • Credibility of program suffers over time--deliverables vs. spending • Simple competition for $$

37. CONCEPTS PROVED VALID • People within an organization DO have new and unique ideas • There ARE new business opportunities which will not be discovered by normal business visions and processes • Independent funding mechanisms, no matter what kind, can stimulate different activities

38. CONCEPTS PROVED INVALID • A single location (“creativity centers”), by itself, within an organization, can facilitate broad organizational innovation • The R&D function can do it alone, or in spite of other functions

39. RECENT BUSINESS TRENDS • Customer driven vs. technology driven ---the balance has shifted significantly • Core competencies being used to identify focus areas and frequently used as shadow organization structures • Alliances and strategic partnerships that are not necessarily permanent • New problem solving tools • scientific vs. psychological • “Business” teams and organizations vs. functional leadership of activities

40. RECENT PERSONNEL TRENDS • Dramatic decline in loyalty, downsizings • Increased specialization • “Temporary” assignments and more rapid turnover Impact Capturing and broadening of intellectual property (not just patents, but “know how”) much more important AND difficult

41. TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT VS. TIME Desired Advancement Actual Time

42. WHAT’S CHANGED IN THE PAST 15 YEARS?

43. A DRAMATIC CHANGE…. GENERATING COST OF INFORMATION Source: Jim Palmer, P&G DISSEMINATING TIME

44. COST OF INFORMATION….. • Generation • Must be right in the first place • Must be focused on the right problem • Problem definition more critical than ever • Must be protected and provide value • Dissemination • Retrieval • Access

45. LONG TERM BUSINESS TRENDS (NOT CYCLES) Emergent Action Rational Action Constrained action Charismatic Leadership Creative Network Conservation CRISIS CHOICE Confusion Strategic Management Entrepreneurial action Source: Crisis and Renewal, David Hurst, Harvard Business School Press, 1995

46. REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU ARE IN THE CYCLE…. Innovation is ALWAYS NEEDED!

47. HOW SHOULD WE DO IT RIGHT--IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL SENSE?

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

49. FUNCTIONAL INTEGRATION • All innovation efforts and initiatives must include or have a mechanism to trigger inclusion of the commercial and manufacturing base of the organization • Who is going to buy? • How are we going to make? • Do we have the required competencies? • Should we license and/or find a partner?

50. IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT • These skills are not usually present in one individual--must be paired up early • Can be a great mechanism to involve commercial organization • Simple skills can be taught and learned by everyone • What happens if this actually works as planned? • The new monomer example • The B-2 bomber