July CLT Monthly Meeting Summary - "Supercharging Innovation"

See the deck here. Notes from the meeting and chat below.

We started by asking attendees for their definition of innovation:

"Value from ideas"

"Creating novel future value"

"Ideas that have impact"

"Transformative change with measurable outcomes (in market/in context)"

"Connecting dots between old ideas"

"Novel and transformative idea"

"Proactively create change"

"Action on ideas and evolution"

"Reimagining my current environment"

"Solving problems in new ways"

"Something new or a tweak to something existing"

"Converting ideas into economic value via product, systems or capabilities that solve problems or create new opportunities"

We then discussed the drivers behind this topic, i.e., why did members vote for “innovation”?

The pressure to deliver revenue growth is intense, but organic growth in the core business is difficult and rare. Innovation will be necessary to find new markets and opportunities.

In addition, new capabilities and requirements, driven by AI and other factors, are overwhelming organizations’ capacity to onboard innovation and change.

We asked attendees for input on a series of questions:

1.The group felt that resilience, agility, and change-readiness are largely adjacent and table stakes for achieving a culture of innovation.

"... the resilience change, readiness, agility is the normal course of business, especially today… Innovation is a complete right turn, in some cases, from where the company is going, in order to help push the thinking."

".. change, resiliency, agility, are the enablers of creating the culture of innovation.’

A dedicated innovation process is also required: “in order to deliver innovation, there has to be a process layer. So you've got the funding and asset allocation layer, you've got the process layers. You've got resources and process and all these cultural attributes."

2. Participants opined that asset allocation and balancing steady state versus innovation activities require careful consideration of the company's situation, strategic goals, and risk tolerance.

Use a horizon-based approach: "...a lot of our work is based on horizons. It is a struggle to figure out that ratio of time when we're looking at the longer term versus the shorter term..."

Integrate innovation into steady-state work: "...we've actually infused innovation into the steady state and tried to leverage some of our innovation processes to assist with some steady-state work."

Align with business relevance: "...ensuring that the work is relevant to the business by helping identify the problems that are out there."

Adapt based on company situation: "...a lot of the approach on the allocation problem depends upon the situation of the company." Dennis recommends a four-cell matrix based on profitability and competitiveness to guide decision-making.

Several members note that you have to balance across different types of innovation (product versus business model, for example) with an eye to economic value to the organization.

Pay attention to how you sell it. " Sometimes, it's the way you sell something rather than what you sell that you need to accelerate."

Balance quantity and quality, allow for experimentation and failure: One participant mentions Adobe's approach: "I could spend a million dollars on one bet, or I could spend $1,000 each on 1000 bets, same money. No big deal, right? But part of that was assuming that most of those $1,000 bets were going to be just failures."

3. There was a broad discussion of the cultural, structural, leadership, and operational aspects of an organization for successful innovation.

Willingness to take risks: "...if you're not competitive, but you're profitable, you're at risk of being stagnant, and you're going to have to encourage people to take some more risk."

Clear purpose and goals: "...we have to make sure that there's a clear question we're trying to answer. Now, obviously, experiments have to happen. You have to continue the engine of seeking, but clearly defined questions make the process a lot easier to go after the right problems."

Expectation and socialization of innovation: "Is there an expectation of innovation? Is there an appetite for risk? And can you create opportunity for the person, for the company, for the organization. Are there any rewards? And is there a socialization of the concept that we're all innovative, we're going to be innovative, we're going to innovate."

Flexibility and boundary-less behavior: "...innovation requires, by design, people to step out of neat little boxes. And if all you have created in your organization represents what you put on the PowerPoint with neat little boxes, you'll never get innovation. So how do you create the boxes but still have a boundary-less behavior..."

4. Finally, George summarized how to think about structuring your innovation function by describing a framework for four types of corporate entrepreneur models:

1. The Idea Sponsor Model: "If someone who shows up who has an idea, they find the executive sponsor, and they go off, they do something innovative"

2. The Pure Resourcing Model: "...here's a bunch of resources. Go grab it, do whatever you want. There's some stage gates you need to get through. But generally, the resources are there."

3. The Proselytizer Model 

4.  The True Source Lab Environment

"I find all these models interesting, and they work in different places and different ways. The key is identifying what your cultural mix is going to be.” Align with your culture and your business needs.

RESOURCES LISTED IN CHAT

“Farther Faster With Less Drama: 7 Superpowers for Extraordinary Innovation Teams" by Janice Fraser. https://www.amazon.com/Farther-Faster-Less-Drama-Extraordinary/dp/1637742894

 "The Change Maker's Playbook: How to Seek, Seed and Scale Innovation in Any Company" by Amy Radin https://www.amazon.com/Change-Makers-Playbook-Innovation-Company/dp/1947951068

"Move Fast Break Shit" by Shannon Lucas and Tracey Lovejoy

"Why Entrepreneurs Should Think Like Scientists" - Harvard Business Review article. https://hbr.org/2024/07/why-entrepreneurs-should-think-like-scientists

 "Nimble Leadership" concept. Link provided: https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/3-leadership-types-a-nimble-organization

"Unboxing innovation: Way to 'C' it!" - LinkedIn article by Jayshree Seth 

Mintzberg's work on Strategic Planning vs. Strategic Thinking