Innovation is a subersive act

Innovation often happens in companies despite their best efforts, not because of it.

The inherent problem of innovation is that it requires a low level of respect for orthodoxy, institutions, organizations and customs.  In order to imagine, develop and sell something new, one has to assume that the old way is not necessarily the only or best way to do something. The threat innovation presents to the existing order of things is irrelevance, even extinction. Innovation gets around the rules of the road and quite often creates new rules.  It subverts our understanding of what is possible. Innovation alters, manipulates and even destroys the present in order to create the future.

In 1633, when Galileo discovered that the Earth moved around the Sun - an observation that allowed for an entirely new understanding of the world, the Catholic church did everything they could to squash that innovation, and declared in their statement, "...the proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and...heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture."  Galileo was denounced and imprisoned, while the incredibly successful Catholic Church took more than three centuries to adapt their outlook to a new reality.

The Catholic Church rejected this new idea - not because they wished to avoid progress, but because innovation potentially threatened their position as an organization that understood the true nature of the world.  If they accepted this new view of the heavens, they would have to abandon their own orthodoxy, possibly undermining their own position as the dispenser of truths and possibly encourage their constituents to leave the church.  This innovation was perceived to threaten their survival.  Interestingly, the church's reluctance to accept changes in science, custom and culture, though at times a strength, has also allowed other philosophies and religious institutions to rise and flourish in their stead.

It's logical that a successful organization will likely resist or reject innovation that challenges their success.  IBM resisted PC's as long as they could - and even undermined their own PC division.  Microsoft resisted the Internet, social networking and open source programming as long as they possibly could- for each one of these innovations threatens the success of their existing business.  The auto industry still resists innovations that challenge the internal combustion engine.  Aristocracies have resisted democratic governance for thousands of years. The list of successful organizations that have rejected, squashed or resisted innovation is endless. 

And in almost every case, the reigning orthodoxy states with absolute certainty, "this innovation is impossible."  Man will never fly.  It is impossible to go to the moon.  No one will ever want a personal computer.  Cars will never be inexpensive enough for everyone to own.  It's impossible for France and England to be allies.  An African American can never be elected president of the United States.

So why would a company want to foster innovation?  They don't.  Almost all companies talk about the need for innovation, and spend time, money and resources instituting innovation projects and programs.  They may even boast about their innovations, R&D spending, patents and new products...but underneath their official story, they don't really want to innovate. Even while discussing the importance and ideals of innovation, successful companies are uncounciously incented to keep innovation from happening.

Put in another way - if a company is successful, has a strong market share, is able to provide executives with fat paychecks, workers with reliable salaries, and investors with reliable returns, why on earth would they want to jeopardize success with a completely new way of doing something.  Doesn't it make more sense to gradually improve what they have instead of changing it?

This strategy of avoiding any real innovation seems reasonable.  It seems like a way to avoid unnecessary risk.  It seems like the right thing to do.  If we allowed unfettered innovation, how on earth would companies survive?

And yet, how can a company survive unless they can adapt to change, find new opportunities, and define the future for customers and investors?  Companies must innovate, not because it is easy, inexpensive, comfortable or risk free; but because without it, they will ultimately fail. Without innovation, one has to accept that the world is flat, that the United States of America cannot exist, that slaves are necessary for an economy to thrive, that only priests can read text or interpret reality, that illness cannot be cured, or that children cannot do better than their parents. If orthodoxies and assumptions are never challenged by an organization - another organization that is willing to do so will ultimately take their place.

Central to the task of innovating inside an established organization is to become comfortable with the notion of subverting oneself.  Organizations that can balance the need for continuity, certainty and harmony with the need for disruption, uncertainty and the dissonance of innovation are more likely to last longer, to reinvent themselves and thrive in good times and bad.

Innovation is subversive and dangerous - but it's also essential.  It is important that innovation programs are taken seriously, are given appropriate room to succeed or fail, and are listened to and acted upon even if the results threaten current orthodoxies.  

Does innovation work when it's too innovative?

Innovation is needed now more than ever and companies, governments and organizations are trying to figure out how to become more innovative, and more successful at innovating.

But can the new thrive without the old?  

Once the first adopters of an innovation have latched on to something, can the rest of the world catch on without some form of help?  Or as Geoffrey Moore in his excellent book, Crossing the Chasm might ask, "How can we move from Early Adopters of an innovation to the Early Majority?"

There's an interesting paradox here:  most marketers would agree that something completely new is a difficult sell...even though we are all in the business of selling something new.

In other words, innovation needs to be new, without being new.

Do we need a bridge from the old way of doing things to a new way of doing things?  If so, what is that bridge and how do we build it?

Let's look at one area of innovation growth:  the Internet innovation attracting the most attention these days is the explosive growth of social media networking tools such as Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, YouTube, Helium, del.icio.us, Craigslist and Wikipedia...new Internet environments that allow people to connect and collaborate in ways never thought possible before.  The book of the moment by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff describes all these social technologies as a Groundswell.  This stuff is so ubiquitous, so easy-to-use and so inexpensive that more people are engaging with it at an exponential pace every day.  It has become so mainstream, that many people credit these networking tools for changing the very nature of the US political process.

But there's one more potential reason for why these innovative ideas have become mainstream so quickly.  They don't really seem that new.

Each of these tools are in some way based upon systems that already exist, that people are already comfortable with, that are entirely familiar.  Address books, bulletin boards, diaries, episodic storytelling and networking have been a part of everyone's life for generations. None of these innovations have asked users to change what they are doing - rather augmenting what they already do.  And most users do not exclusively use these tools without combining them with some for of actual connection in the real world.  A business person may keep their address book in LinkedIn, but they still call someone up to get to know them better, or share a cup of coffee with them between Twitter posts.

Another example comes from the beginning of the World Wide Web in the 1990's, when everyone extolled the power of virtual businesses.  Someday, 

everyone assumed, there would be no more "bricks and mortar" stores - everything would be virtual.  Perhaps - but it hasn't happened yet.  Instead, there has

 been a gradual redefinition of retail to a hybrid that combines both the Internet and actual visits to stores.  Old style retailers ranging from J.Crew to Sears, to Barnes & Noble and Best Buy discovered the power of the Internet to expand sales and communicate directly to their customers.    Customers of the stores became customers on the Internet, because they found everything to be just like going to a store - even a "shopping cart" was provided.

And why am I typing this blog post with a QWERTY keyboard...

designed to help slow down a typist's speed so that a mechanical typewriter wouldn't jam quite so often?

The hybrid of old and new provides a bridge for innovation. Innovation needs to be old as well as new, familiar as well as novel if it is to be adopted.

How does this work...really?

There's always at least two versions of how a relationship or process works. There is the official version; what we learn in school, hear in a political speech, put on brochures or report to investors. And then there is the real version - the version usually prefaced by, "this is how things really work."

In order to change or improve something, understanding "how things really work" should be essential. And yet, innovation efforts quite often start without anyone challenging the official version of the truth. An obvious example right now would be the US auto industry, where innovators wasted much of their time, resources and labor improving something that may not have been that important to customers...at least not important enough to pay for it when it became expensive.

In the 1990's and early 2000's, US car buyers could purchase cars with more and more power. The conventional thinking was that since consumers enjoyed powerful cars and since they continued to buy them, they must really want more powerful cars. The logical extension of this "official version" of the market was that larger, more powerful cars would always command a greater market share and price premiums. Innovation resources at GM, Chrysler and Ford focused on delivering more power every year - and they delivered admirably. Sales continued to do very well throughout that period as the roads clogged up with SUV's, muscle cars, and ever larger pick up trucks.

But...no matter how big their trucks became, the American car companies continued to lose market share to companies like Toyota and Honda...even when American cars cost less money...

Meanwhile, non-US manufactures continued to improve the efficiency of their cars. A few attempts at producing large non-US cars (usually manufactured in the US) were relatively successful, but they never stopped making efficient small cars. And every year, their market share increased. Every year, even though the conventional thinking was that US car buyers preferred to buy large and powerful engines - companies with smaller engines sold more.

Was "the way things really work" different than we thought?

After a protracted war and conflict in oil producing countries, increased awareness of environmental threats and an unprecedented volatility in gas prices, American cars and trucks stopped selling. And Toyota kept growing.

But how could that be? Americans love their muscle cars and trucks, don't they? At least, that's the official version of the truth.

The un-official version? Perhaps most Americans - like everyone else in the world - don't put that much priority on horse power. Something else probably drives their purchasing behavior - and it just looks like they are addicted to muscle. Otherwise, if horse power were truly a dominant reason to buy a car, buyers would make whatever sacrifices necessary to keep buying it - even as oil prices fluctuate and global warming becomes an accepted context.

This was an easy trap, and almost everyone has at some time or another fallen into it. The official version of the truth - although useful for continuing the existing order of things - is very deceptive when it comes to innovation or preparing for future change.

Good innovators rarely believe the official truth. To innovate almost requires one to be skeptical - even subversive - when considering the established order of things. That's why, when considering innovation, it can help to use a single word, "Really".

The next time you are asked to improve something, make sure you are ready to ask, "really?" early and often.

A proposed "Really" method for innovation preparation

Step One - determine how it works now...really...when a customer buys, uses, displays and disposes of your product/service/process, ask "why?" Start with the official version of reality, then ask the question, "Is that REALLY what happens?". Probe, ask questions, determine what the actual motivations, actions and functions are - not the perceived value - the real value.

Step Two - determine what isn't working...really... where is the pain, what stinks about a product, service or process? Where do people feel most frustrated? How do they work around what stinks? How are they overcoming your lousy output? What are the band-aides? What is the alternative?

Step Three - What do we want...really... start with an official version of what people want - then ask "really?" Is that what we really want? Is there something else that would be even better? What do we really hope to accomplish? What does that look like?

When you understand what really happens, what really isn't working, and what people really want, you may have a foundation for meaningful innovation.

Really.