innovative

Since the last 3 years India has been the most happening market for all industries in Europe and USA. Outsourcing all production work to India was the most common solution to reduce production cost. Due to this money started to flow in India and international organizations realized the potential. Last 2 years showed major economic explosion. This affected Indian organizations in many ways.

Indian organizations got benefited due to economic explosion. People had enough money to buy goods and services which were of a better quality and design. Since many foreign companies were serving goods and services of high quality and design, Indian organization had to match them to survive in the competition. They were forced to pay attention to design, quality and service. These companies eventually hired a lot of designers. Many new design schools opened in India in the last two years to cater to this growing need of industries.

Things changed so fast that there remained a fundamental flaw which is now back firing. Organizations hired designers but failed to use their creative potential to the fullest. These organizations were not ready for the fundamental changes which enable designers explore and show their creative talent. Indian organizations are infested with hierarchy, rigid policy, strict rules, uneven power distribution and frightful environment which are major contributions to kill creative ideas and motivation to work. This is making designers quit jobs frequently.

1) Research suggests sustained innovation and creativity demands a specific kind of

Organization policy

Organization structure

Organization processes and

Organizational environment

For any Indian organization these changes are radical change in the way it governs or makes business. These changes are perceived as threat to the current success, progress and optimized processes for economical production of goods and services.

Innovation and creative process in organizations is governed by managers. These managers are not designers nor do they have formal training in innovation and creativity. They are more concerned about optimization of the resources, reducing the cost etc. Research says these managers are responsible to kill creativity and disconnect a good idea to reach the CEO.
Research also says no organization can survive for a long time just by reducing cost.

2) Some companies who started recently did it right, but they did not succeed in a long run because there was no system to manage the process of innovation and creativity. And why would there be? There is no institution which gives training in innovation and creativity. This education is fundamentally different from the design or design management education that is given in any design schools.

India as of today is becoming more unattractive to MNCs who are trying to come in because of increase in the salary expectations. It clearly shows that market is going to stabilize in a few months from now leaving India with no incoming money. This would continue unless organizations find a sustained ways to keep the money circulating. Edward De-bono says innovation and creativity is the only sustained way to survive in along run and stay ahead in competition.

It is time for Indian organizations to capitalize on the current economic situation and successfully instutionalize innovation and creativity.

When I first started my studies I thought this is the case only with Indian organizations but recently I found that this is a typical scenario across globe. Organizations in India and abroad are facing problems either in implementation of innovation and creativity or managing innovation and creative people.

Some CEO’S think that their organization does innovations and is very creative at work. They tend to confuse innovation with design. There was an interesting survey done which found that the definition of innovation these CEO’S made varied from gaining a lot of business from the product to changing the color of product from black to blue.

There are various measures of innovativeness. A simple way to find is to look at the product, process, system, service, or an environment the organization developed in one year and ask the following questions:

A) Are there 5 new products that did not exist in the world before?

B) Do these 5 products fundamentally change?

The way company made business

The way company manufactured distributed or marketed the products

The way it is used by the end user

C) Have the products solved the problem that was lasting for over a decade ?

Some designers think that a good design (example an ergonomically better mouse) is also an innovation. The exact difference between a better design and innovation can be explained if you look at the following briefs given to designers

Design a better mouse. (Would definitely be a mouse)

Design a hand held input device. (Can be any input device)

Design a way to give input. (may be device, may be process)

Design an input system to do the task. (May be one or many device)

Design an environment to do the task. (May be one or many device or none)

Not many organizations give their designers the last two briefs which have high probabilities of getting close to an incremental innovation.

A radical innovation is still much ahead of these briefs. This may cater to unsolved problems in areas where there is no existing product. In those cases the briefs are made from extensive trend analysis, market research, socio-psychological and ethnographic studies. There are many ways that organization can adopt or deal with this fussy front-end and develop a strategy for innovation.

What does it take to do these changes? How would it affect the way organization function? What is ROI?

1) It takes major change in the way organization works in terms of the organization structure, process, policy and the environment. There is a systematic way to implement this change. As I told earlier that these changes will always be resisted and avoided in organization, hence for successful implementation of change effective communication and convincing becomes necessary apart from managing the change.

2) Companies try to adapt models of previously established companies. These models may have compatibility issues. They either may not suit the kind of work the company does or they may face problems related to culture, social and political conditions in the organization.

3) There is no limit to R.O.I of implementing innovation and creativity but there are ways to work around it and demonstrate it on sample projects.

4) Innovation outsourcing (different from design outsourcing) cannot solve the problem as it would get expensive over a period of time and companies would need to have it in-house.

5) Innovation and creativity training would help to some extend but unless organization make the fundamental changes, instutionalize innovation, bring it into process, and consistently feed the innovation pipeline they may not be able to taste the real fruits.

3M, Google, give atleast 15% of time to employees to work on project that they feel interesting and would benefit the company.
3M made post-itTm from such a program and is still making 100 million dollars each year. 3M also has a policy to make 5 products every year that did not exist in market before.
Google, E-bay, Amazon and Apple changed and are the top 4 growing brands in the world.

The take-away are:

Start with outsourcing Innovation. Hire an innovation consultant.

Train people in house in innovation and creativity/hire designers.

Build a innovation centre.

Mean while slowly Change. (managed)

>Organization structure (hierarchy, power distributions)

> Policy

> Processes

> Environment

Establish system for sustained Innovation.

> Market research

> Trend analysis

> Design and innovation management

I am a deziner by proffession (Architect and Industrial designer) I been stuyding innovation and creativity since last few years. My expertise is around the areas of idea generation, creative facilitation, structured innovation process, implementing innovation and creative process in organizations, design management, trend analysis.

The tools, techniques and methods that i use are systematic, scientiic and research based. They can be customized to organisations in any sector like IT, consumer goods, education, agriculture, films, and advertising etc.

Email: idrushi@gmail.com

Tags: creativity, design, India, innovation, Innovative Organisation, Outsourcingcreativity, design, India, innovation, Innovative Organisation, Outsourcing

Share This

The title implies that some people are and others not.

This is a myth.

First, creativity can be described as problem identification and the generation of a quantity of ideas, a number of novel ideas and a number of diverse ideas. Innovation can be described as idea selection, development and commercialisation. Therefore creative people and innovative people are separate and distinct. Apple was founded by two people, the guy who came up with the ideas (few people seem to remember or even note his name) and the guy who marketed them (Steve Jobs). Of course there is cross over - look at it like a Venn diagram.

Second, whilst there are assertions for creativity traits such as a tolerance for ambiguity and an intolerance for conformity, such traits are hard to identify and are not stable or transferable across situations. Further, motivation is more critical than traits - this is like possessing high intelligence - one must be motivated to improve and use it.

Third, it has been shown that most people can come up with a quantity of ideas and a quantity of novel and diverse ideas. The exact numbers depends on a variety of factors such as:

a) The degree of frame breaking allowed

b) The degree of experience with the problem

c) Motivation

Fourth, people can learn to quickly increase the number of ideas they produce. This can be accomplished through

a) Training

b) Practice

c) Engagement in a increased number of diverse and novel behaviours and topics.

d) Expression encouragement

e) Prolific production

So why is it some people just seem to be more creative?

In their comfort zone, people who seem more creative tend to:

a) Have a depth of knowledge

b) Do not get so absorbed in their topic to cause blinkered vision

c) Have access to multiple knowledge resources and bring that knowledge into the problem solving exercise.

d) Are in a position to express their ideas.

e) Are in a position to express themselves more freely and this manifests itself in aspects such as behaviour and outward appearance (clothing etc). Higher status individuals have a higher propensity for expression.

In conclusion, creative and innovative types are separate and distinct. Creativity is a cognitive ability, which all are a capable of. Cognitive activity is more likely to be expressed when the individual is of high status or in a fostering environment. Innovative people are more aware of the process of idea selection, development and commercialisation. But of course this can be learned and developed.

These and other topics are covered in depth in the MBA dissertation on Managing Creativity & Innovation, which can be purchased (along with a Creativity and Innovation DIY Audit, Good Idea Generator Software and Power Point Presentation) from http://www.managing-creativity.com

Kal Bishop, MBA

**********************************

You are free to reproduce this article as long as no changes are made and the author’s name and site URL are retained.

Kal Bishop is a management consultant based in London, UK. He has consulted in the visual media and software industries and for clients such as Toshiba and Transport for London. He has led Improv, creativity and innovation workshops, exhibited artwork in San Francisco, Los Angeles and London and written a number of screenplays. He is a passionate traveller. He can be reached on http://www.managing-creativity.com.

Tags: creative people, creative types, creativity, innovation, innovative peoplecreative people, creative types, creativity, innovation, innovative people

Share This

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In order to better understand why we engage in strategic planning, I conducted a strategic planning session with a Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia. This project included a series of on-site meetings with the leadership group and several in-depth interviews. The focus was on rekindling the leadership’s enthusiasm for mission and ministry and developing a strategic plan (including areas of focus, goals, and action plans) for future ministry. This was guided by an elected leadership team that worked with me in designing and leading the events. This format provided a high level of leadership participation and ownership. Since time was a limiting factor, the congregation was not able to provide extensive dialogue in discerning a broader and longer-range mission and ministry focus.

The desired outcome of the project was to renew fellowship and enthusiasm for mission and ministry among church leaders, evaluate the organization’s present condition, ministries and programs from the leadership’s perspective, determine areas of need or neglect in the life and mission of the congregation, and develop a priority list to guide the congregation’s use of time and energy over the next year. This Baptist church provided a backdrop for stimulating thoughts and dialogue about strategic planning and what changes or improvements you can make in your own planning processes. I intend to identify key elements to strategic planning, define tools for reinventing your planning process, and describe why leaders must articulate vision throughout the organization. I’ll summarize by providing leaders with a ‘way ahead’ - recommendations for improvement and lessons learned from this Baptist Church’s strategic planning session.

DISCOVERING WHY WE ENGAGE IN STRATEGIC PLANNING

Strategic planning can occur in a wide variety of activities from athletic competitions to non-profit organizations. This paper looks at strategic planning from a consultant’s perspective so its content can apply to almost any area. Johnston (2003) asserts “For effective strategy innovation, companies must create a new process, one that is creative, market-centric, heuristic (discovery driven), and focused on the future.” (p. 55). In other words an effective strategy will have the capability to obtain the desired objective, fit well with the internal and external environment, provide a sustainable competitive advantage, prove dynamic and able to adapt to changing situations, and suffice on its own.

Strategic planning is about analysis whereas strategic thinking is about synthesis- an effective strategic plan is the product of effective strategic thinking. Strategic thinking involves intuition and imagination which leads to an integrated perspective of the enterprise. Strategic thinking is the precursor of strategy development and results in a “synthesis of emerging themes” from a creative process. (Sanders, 1998, p. 162). Strategic thinking creates an environment in which differences in organizational values can be identified and eliminated. Sanders (1998) argued that creating a “Futurescape” - map or picture of the organizational environment - at the beginning of the strategic planning process “will help you identify issues and subjects about which your executive team and/or board need more information prior to its actual planning session.” (p. 130). The strategic plan can only be effective once differences have been identified and resolved!

KEYS TO EFFECTIVE STRATEGIC PLANNING

During my group meetings I discovered that not only is the congregation not involved in the strategic planning process, but each leadership team focuses on their own independent process. For example, the Ministers discussed a plan to improve their music ministry that included hiring musicians but failed to include a budget cost or budgetary requirements. Additionally, the Trustee Board developed an annual budget that included increased payments to reduce debt but failed to account for increased ministry requirements. Neither leadership team involved the congregation in their efforts. This lack of communication would only result in an unexcitable budget, delays in ministry development, and lack of support form the congregation. Strategic thinking must involve participation from the entire organization. Leaders that wish to have followers contribute to the implementation of the strategy must share their strategy with their followers and actively encourage them to suggest ways by which the strategy can be achieved. “Implementing a strategy begins by educating and involving the people who must execute it.” (Kaplan and Norton, 1996, p. 199).

Kouzes and Posner (2002) argued, “Strategic planning often spoils strategic thinking because it causes managers to believe that the manipulation of numbers creates imaginative insight into the future and vision.” (p. 153). Strategic thinking is more than a matter of the chief executive having a spark of inspiration that miraculously works its way into a strategic plan. The purpose of the strategic thinking process is to help organizational leaders and their management teams make deliberate decisions which lead to a strategic plan. This process requires teamwork and a total commitment to seeing great ideas come to fruition. It’s about having the right people working on the right issues.

The element of the environment (internal and external) has the most immediate impact on planning. “The organization must adapt to the environment or perish.” (Sadler, 1993, p. 22). Most organizations, however, seem to ignore the external dimension of their business. They devote immense efforts to optimizing the internal factors which are within their control; but they barely notice what is happening outside, and make little attempt to formally manage that side of their activities, except for some marketing responses. A major element of that outside environment is made up from the factors most organization group under `marketing’ or evangelism for religious organizations. Beyond this, however, there is a whole range of social and political factors which may have even greater impact. Not least is the impact of government regulation, which may make or break whole sectors of industry.

The main focus, however, revolves around responses and strategies among leaders. In the case of our Baptist Church, many leaders did not see the benefit of pursuing 501(c)(3) or non-profit certification from the Internal Revenue Service since it’s not required by law. However, others visualized the increased ability to acquire and maintain external resources. Conflict such as these would be simplified if the organization was in control of all of the components necessary for their operations. However, this is rarely the case. Organizations are linked to the environment through their dependency of the resources they require - no organization is completely self-contained. According to Formisano (2003), “Good companies create a system in which new information about the environment, the industry, or the company can be updated and assessed on a regular basis in the context of the strategic plan.” (p. 64).

TOOLS FOR REINVENTION

The tendency for many leaders is to deal with the growing complexity of running an organization is to add on more complexity, further distancing followers from customers and executives from the followers. Randall (2005) observed, “companies continue to increase the complexity of their operations by globalizing sourcing, manufacturing, engineering, and marketing/sales operations. This growing complexity makes it ever more difficult to manage product lifecycles optimally.” (p. 20).

It is easier to react to changing conditions as they emerge, rather than attempt to define the future. But what is easy rarely enables one to achieve a position of leadership. How, then, do leaders begin to overcome the culture of their own creation? Sadler (1993), suggests that organizational culture needs to be “strategically appropriate”, implying that it should be kept constantly under review. (P. 73). Creating a culture capable of continuous change requires resurrecting the visionary spirit of leaders. Visionary leaders are filled with vision and possibility; they focus on a single goal that becomes the centerpiece of their efforts; the obstacles they face are seen as temporary; and their mind reverberates with ideas for how to break through the barriers they encounter. According to Haines (1995), “Strategic planning and managing change must be championed over the long haul by a single-minded dedication of the leaders doing the planning.” (P. 4).

Our Baptist church congregation was frequently challenged by new opportunities for ministry while at the same time wondering about the effectiveness and meaning of established ministries. The entire situation became confusing and occasionally frustrating. One of the ways that organizations can clarify their purpose and direction is to commit to the planning process. “Identifying the business opportunities for strategy innovation is a process that can be carried out in any company willing to make the commitment to it.” (Johnston, 2003, p. 70). This process is a journey in which an organization works together to define its basic values and beliefs, it vision and its future direction.

The impact of changing technology is also a major factor in the development of a strategic plan. “Building a strategy requires that we consider how technology will affect our business: products, services, processes, and investment.” (Formisano, 2003, p. 55). The direct impact of new technology on organizations may be readily apparent. However, leaders are so involved in short-term problems that they cannot see wider perspectives which will determine the future and blinds them to the obvious. Such as the less apparent social or structural changes generated by new technology. Technology is having its wider impact, for one example, by allowing much smaller organizations to achieve `economies of scale’. In the larger organizations it is having a different effect by encouraging horizontal communications (via electronic mail) to take over from the traditional vertical (hierarchical) organization; and in the process is creating new structures.

The ability to leverage knowledge, establish key strategic relationships, be flexible in establishing new relationships, and bring products and services to the market gives organizations an edge over their rivals. “Partnering relationships whereby two or more companies work together to achieve a specific purpose or toward the attainment of common business objectives can be a successful growth strategy for fast-track growth companies.” (Sherman, 2002, p. 475). There are organizational relationships that require constant attention and nurturing - legal, alliances, competitive, and technological to name a few. Leaders require an understanding of the linkages that define the nature and limits of these relationships. Positive relationships increases an organization’s ability to manage conflict.

ARTICULATING VISION

Many people mistake vision statements for mission statements. They are fundamentally different. Mission statement defines the purpose or broader goal for being in existence or in the business. It serves as a guide in times of uncertainty, vagueness. It is like a guiding light. It has no time frame. The mission can remain the same for decades if crafted correctly. While vision is more specific in terms of objective and time frame of its achievement, it is related to some form of achievement if successful. In the case of our Baptist Church, the vision statement is highly visible and constantly stated - Posted on the church’s webpage, printed in the weekly bulletins, and occasionally read aloud during services. But it was not incorporated into the church’s way of ‘doing business’. By this I mean that the mission of the leadership teams, various ministries, and especially front-line leaders (auxiliary coordinators) must be to support the overall vision of the church. In order to become really effective, the organizational vision must become assimilated into the organization’s culture. According to Pale (2005) “By taking an active look at the inner workings of your organization and its culture, you can objectively view the unique strengths and inherent values that could make your company formidable when faced with aggressive rivals.”

Leaders have the responsibility of communicating the vision regularly, creating narratives that illustrate the vision, and acting as role-models by embodying the vision, creating short-term objectives compatible with the vision, and encouraging others to craft their own personal vision compatible with the organization’s overall vision.

REFERENCES

Formisano, R. (2003). Manager’s Guide to Strategy. Blacklick, OH: McGraw-Hill Trade.

Haines, Stephen G. (1995). Successful Strategic Planning. Menlo Park, CA: Course Technology Crisp.

Johnston, R. E. (2003). Power of Strategy Innovation: A New Way of Linking Creativity and Strategic Planning to Discover Great Business Opportunities. Saranac Lake, NY: AMACOM.

Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Boston, Mass Harvard Business School Press.

Kouzes, James M. and Posner, Barry Z. (2002). The Leadership Challenge. Third Ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Books.

Paley, N. (2005). Manage to Win. London, UK: Thorogood. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/regent/Doc?id=10088335&ppg=20.

Randall, R. (Editor). (2005). Innovation. Bradford, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/regent/Doc?id=10103404&ppg=21.

Sadler, P. (1993). Strategic Management. Milford, CT: Kogan Page, Limited.

Sanders, T. I. (1998). Strategic Thinking and the New Science: Planning in the Midst, of Chaos, Complexity, and Change. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Sherman, A. (2002). Fast-Track Business Growth: Smart Strategies to Grow Without Getting Derailed. Washington, D.C.: Kiplinger Books.

Smith, Ronald D. (2004). Strategic Planning for Public Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Incorporated.

Lieutenant Ken Rice is an Active Duty Naval Officer stationed in Norfolk VA. He is currently assigned to Commander, Naval Surface Force’s Warfare Requirments Directorate as the FORCEnet Requirements Officer. Lieutenant Rice is responsible for the program analasys and budget oversight for Information Technology Transformation for the Surface Fleet. He is currently enrolled at Regent University working towards a Doctorate in Strategic Leadership.

Tags: creativity, culture, innovation, leadership, planning, strategycreativity, culture, innovation, leadership, planning, strategy

Share This