June 14, 2008 by Cynthia Sifonis.

This article by Scott Anthony at Harvard Business Weekly Publishing is a wonderful example of using analogy for communicating about innovation. The analogy used in the article is between the Major League Baseball draft and the way a company manages innovation.

Because the analogy and its use for innovative thinking is presented so well, I am going to go all recursive on you and use the article as a showcase of the right ways of using analogy for innovation and for communicating about innovation.

The first step in any analogy is pointing out to the audience the relevant correspondences between the concepts:

“Baseball teams have to assemble the best talent possible, just like companies have to bet on the best innovation opportunities. A baseball team chooses between acquiring talent on the free agent market or drafting and building talent. A company chooses between acquisitions or organic growth.“

A good analogy focuses on deep structural correspondences between concepts:

“Acquisitions are expensive, but perceived to be lower risk, because the talent (or idea) has proven itself demonstrably in the marketplace (for baseball, that means success on a major-league diamond). Organic growth is typically cheaper, but perceived to be risky because many times highly touted initiatives or prospects don’t pan out.“

What this means is that the author isn’t just drawing correspondences between the elements of the two concepts (e.g., “acquiring talent on the free agent market” = “acquisitions”). He is explaining how elements and the relationships between them in one concept correspond to elements and the relationships between them in the other concept.

These correspondences then lead to certain inferences. Inferences, that are important to the point the author is making about innovation:

“Just as a baseball team doesn’t have complete information about what a player’s true level of ability is on draft day, you don’t know the real potential of any one innovation project…. Good teams collect as much data as possible. They have sophisticated models to project how rough performance can project to the major league level.“

Leads to the inference that for companies:

“With a well-organized scouting team, you should gather multiple data points in preparation to “draft” innovation opportunities.”

By pointing out the correspondences between rich concepts such as the ones being used in the Baseball Analogy article, the audience is then able to make their own inferences using their own detailed knowledge of the concepts in the analogy:

“Of course, the market for companies is more liquid than the market for baseball players. We bet you if you ran the data the absolute best return on investment would be acquiring a hitter who has proven himself at a critical midpoint….Ask yourself: What is the equivalent inflection point in our market?“

It is by working out the inferences resulting from correspondences such as these that innovation is made possible. However, these inferences are not possible unless your audience possesses detailed knowledge of the concepts used in the analogy. I, for one, know next to nothing about the Major League Baseball draft. Consequently, I can follow the analogy made by the author and the points being made but would be absolutely unable to determine an “equivalent inflection point” at which I would be most likely to receive the “absolute best return on investment.”

Using analogy for communicating about innovation or for innovation itself requires knowledge of BOTH the concepts used in the analogy. This knowledge can be provided by the person making the analogy or through personal experience, but acquired it must be for innovation to happen.

Posted in innovation, Communication, Analogy | 1 Comment »

June 13, 2008 by Cynthia Sifonis.

I StumbledUpon the OneWord website yesterday. The site gives you a single word (”Daisy” or “Substance”) and you have 60 seconds to write something, anything about that one word.

Once you submit your answer, you can then review what other visitors to the site submitted for that word.

I actually thought it was a pretty creative website. Maybe it was intended to get the creative juices flowing or to help snap a person out of writer’s block. If so, it was unique in that most techniques like this to enhance creative writing or innovation have a person combine two or more random words/concepts and then explore the combination.

The idea that creativity comes about through combination of ideas has a long history. One of the first people to explore the use of conceptual combination in the development of ideas was Poincare. Of course he examined it in the context of “the genesis of mathematical creation.” Poincare reasoned that elementary concepts “collided” in the unconscious. The most fruitful combinations were those made up of disparate elements. However, combinations made from disparate elements were also those most likely to be useless. Why then are we not bombarded with a plethora of useless combinations during innovation or problem solving? Poincare believed it was because the unconscious mind engaged in a selection process only allowing the combinations with the most potential to rise to consciousness. As he stated “Invention is discernment, choice.”

There is ample evidence, both anecdotal and empirical, that combinations of disparate concepts result in creativity and innovation. Consequently, many techniques exist to use conceptual combination to enhance creativity. These include the “Random Logline Generator” for writers and Ward’s “Random Adjective Noun Combination” generator.

Some of the most creative work I have seen has come about through the random pairing of concepts. At the top of my list of creative products resulting from random conceptual combination are:

1.) The artist Mark Tansey’s use of a concept wheel to generate ideas for paintings such as “White on White“.

2.) The Nietzsche Family Circus

3.) Working video games created in response to a random name generator. The winning playable entries (created by the 3 week deadline!) included “Post-Apocalyptic Unicorn Uprising,” “Emo Harvest on The Oregon Trail” “Attack of the Banjo on the High Seas.”

Now you can see why OneWord is different. Perhaps it is designed to help people achieve creativity through tapping into the Zen of the sound of one hand clapping.

Posted in Conceptual Combination, innovation, Creativity | 1 Comment »

May 7, 2008 by Cynthia Sifonis.

Well, this certainly counts as creative advertising.
The idea is that companies can rent the “Flogo” machine for about $3,500 a day and waft little corporate logos into the sky at the rate of about one every 15 seconds.
The little logos will fly as far as 30 miles and as high as 20,000 feet.
Because they are little more than soap bubbles (it is the “little more” that worries me here) they are supposed to be environmentally friendly.
As I said, I think this is a creative way to advertise but I’m not thrilled about the thought of the sky being filled with little corporate logos everywhere I look.

clipped from news.wired.com Francisco Guerra, who’s also a former magician, developed a machine that produces tiny bubbles filled with air and a little helium, forms the foam into shapes and pumps them into the sky.

Posted in Creative advertising, innovation, Creativity | No Comments »

April 1, 2008 by Cynthia Sifonis.

This month Wired posted an interesting article -  “How Apple Got Everything Right By Doing Everything Wrong.”

The author of the article discusses how Apple does everything that companies are not supposed to do if they want to be a creative company. As stated in the article, Apple’s organizational structure and business culture more closely resemble “an old-school industrial manufacturer like General Motors than the typical tech firm.”
Apple is a hierarchical organization with the top dog (Steve Jobs) micromanaging every aspect of the company. Supposedly, this micromanaging includes even little details such as the number of screws to place on the bottom of a laptop or the amount of curve in the corners of a monitor. There is little or no individual autonomy.
This top-down management style isn’t implemented in a soft and fuzzy manner in which employees are reassured about their value to the company and their role in the development and future success of the Apple brand. Oh No. It is of the in-your-face, do it, do it well, or do it somewhere else style.
Extreme secrecy is one of the cultural values. Of course we knew this as it regards telling anyone outside of Apple about Apple’s game plan or in-the-works projects. However, this secrecy extends to individuals and units within the organization as well. Employees only have access to certain areas of the workplace. Teams working on different aspects of the same project do not communicate with each other or are even aware of what the other teams are working on.
What the author of the article points out is really surprising though is that this strategy is actually working for Apple. The secrecy increases the excitement at the unveiling of new products and actually adds to the mystique of the Apple brand. With a visionary such as Steve Jobs leading the company,many of the products are changing the paradigms for that class of product. And Jobs’ managerial style? Well, it appears that people try even harder to please the big boss and earn his approval.

So…does this mean that all the suggestions for making your organization an organization capable of innovating and adapting to a fluid variable marketplace are wrong?  We DON’T need flat organizations that emphasize teamwork and open communication?  Knowledge workers and innovators don’t need autonomy?  We don’t need transparency both within the organization and without?   I doubt it.

I think this type of organizational structure works BECAUSE Steve Jobs is at the helm. Have Jobs manage a company such as Google with an organization that is designed to promote creativity and I don’t think creativity and innovation will result.  Similarly, put someone else in charge of Apple with it’s current culture and organizational structure and I don’t think you would see the level of success the company has exhibited since Jobs took the helm.  I believe that this would be the case even if the CEO managed in a fashion to how Steve Jobs currently manages the organization.

I am just hypothesizing at this point but I think the reason that traditional organizations have trouble with innovation and creativity is because they need a visionary such as Steve Jobs at the helm to be innovative.  These people are few and far between.  So what do you do if you don’t have a visionary at the helm?  You need to fully utilize the resources of the people you do have in an environment that has been shown to promote creativity and innovation.

Posted in Organizational Creativity, innovation, Creativity | No Comments »

April 1, 2008 by Cynthia Sifonis.

This article taps into the fear of all U.S. entrepreneurs. We know that China can manufacture more quickly and more cheaply. It might even be able to do it better.
We acknowledge that China’s advantages are no longer in just the manufacturing realm and are now moving to the technology domain.
However, we have always held onto the idea that we excel at innovation. The current cultural emphasis on creativity and innovation is the direct result of our belief that our competitive advantage now lies in our ability to generate new ideas and to turn those ideas into innovations.
This article argues that this advantage might soon be disappearing:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-04/bz_china

Posted in innovation, Creativity | No Comments »