Every now and again, we like to use simple everyday situations to illustrate how easy Innovation and Idea Management can be.

In the latest installation of this theme, I will share a simple example of collaboration and its ripple effects across a seemingly complex, diverse and siloed environment.

Last Friday evening I was returning home from work by car. The highway was jammed so I decided to take the longer, more pastoral and usually less congested road that runs along Montreal’s lakeshore (Montreal for those who don’t know is an island-city). When the cross-street that I was on hit Lakeshore Road, traffic was bumper-to-bumper; as a result of the single-lane only configuration, this had all the potential of being a worse case scenario than the multi-lane freeway. But a remarkable thing happened on our way to gridlock: the person in front of me who was waiting to merge was let in  by a driver already on Lakeshore Road. That helped our situation and we got moving. A little ways down, another car was waiting to merge onto Lakeshore Road and the car in front of me (the lady who had been let in) now let that person in; and the driver waived “thank you” in appreciation. Everyone in sight followed the example and cars started merging like the teeth meshing on a zipper. However, a couple of Stop signs later, the original car that had let the lady in front of me in had to turn onto another congested road. This time, no one let her in and everyone around us stopped moving again.

So when you look at your organization to see where your process is at a roadblock, find the laggards who don’t play as a team and either honk at them or pull them out of the flow. It only takes one road-hog to slow everyone else down.

There is a healthy debate regarding the benefits of automating the innovation workflow process versus routing ideas manually. From our perspective, both sides are right.

Because we would be loathe to create more ambiguity about this thorny subject, let us outline why a workflow strategy designed around inclusiveness is better than choosing one methodology exclusively.

Ideas are lumps of clay until the communal artist refines it into a masterpiece; and all that takes the right input, in the right amount, by the right participants and at right time. The combination of these is often different for each idea, given that they have:

• Varying benefits
• Differing goals
• More or less complexity
• Faster or slower speed of execution
• More or fewer participants
• Ranges of expertise
• Scope of financial impacts
• Market (Internal/external) timing considerations

Now if one adds subsets to each of these attributes, which could easily multiply the characteristics, features and ultimate needs-sets, how can anyone anticipate the many workflow permutations that will be right for any given (and yet unknown) idea? So when we return to the bi-polar answer of having both routing types, the Fuzzy Front-End is best serviced with human intervention to get the idea off on the right track; within a couple of exchanges, the promising idea already narrows in focus and can then be picked-up by an automated workflow – once we know where we’re going, it makes sense to channel it into a workflow model that is used to delivering that part of the business model.

Because there is a lot of multi and concurrent tasking that occurs at the Front-End, flexibility is your greatest ally to insure that your idea can overcome submission-inertia and build the kind of momentum thru the development chain in order to get the right resources. It doesn’t necessarily guarantee that each idea will be a winner, but it does deliver the promise that each idea will have the same optimized chance for success.

It is exciting to see the rate at which innovation activities are being initiated. It is equally amazing to see how many of these forays are steeped in buzz versus idea progression. It would appear that people like to avoid the meaningful work around innovation processes and process innovation in favor of just pushing buttons.

Take the example of predictive markets. When one strips away all the bells and whistles, predictive markets really just amount to another voting mechanism. So if your Idea and Innovation Process already has a voting scheme to it, why have a predictive market on top of that? How many voting systems do you need before getting to work on building an idea towards a next step...or making it great... or getting it closer to market ready?

How many votes does it take before you stop voting and start developing that idea? Or does it just become a mutual admiration society for ideas? All this voting creates activity but does not create added value. If we agree the idea is good, that's great - there is a next step; in fact, there are several - collaboration...and then development; and then validation and then decision...and then planning...and so on. You get the picture.

The vote is an indication of intent; not a solution. Worse yet, it is statistically proven that the more you ask the same question, the more it skews responses from the original, un-skewed reaction.

So if instead of a bunch of two-line ideas with multiple layers of votes each telling us the same thing, how about an idea that has progressed and evolved into a mini-business case, replete with vote results, operational and/or market validation, some cost/revenue justification and a semblance of implementation - in order to move forward, one has to simply stop agreeing over-and-over and at some point start contributing real value.

Making innovations out of ideas takes more than votes - it takes meaningful contributions that build incremental value at every stage of an idea's ascension. So with less tabulation and more idea development, one can move towards a process that delivers innovation substance, not just more votes.

Because we are in the Innovation and Idea Management space, thinking analogously about process in our day-to-day is just an occupational by-product – everything that moves or grows has some type of process associated to it. And with that comes the opportunity for continuous improvement. As we like to say in our industry, and because of Omni-present competitive forces, standing still is actually falling behind.

So as the week-end approached and a winter camping trip needed preparing for, I was packing a sleeping bag into the miniature sack it was meant to fit in (presumably inserted by a machine at the factory or my some highly-experienced hands on a production line). I was struggling to fit more of the sleeping bag into the seemingly full sack when I realized that sticking my hand deeper into the sack and pushing from that vantage point actually allowed me to jam more of the %”$”!* thing in; until it was completely packed. Whew!! Upon reflection of  a job well done, I made the link between this banal situation and some of the more common workflow process choke-points; and how typically force in its many permutations is exercised to try and alleviate the impasse - either through:

• Punitive measures such as:
• as being “outed” on a report
• having benefits taken away
• negative entry on an Annual Performance Review
• demotion
• Etc.
• Incentives such as:
• Cash
• Travel
• Merchandise
• Recognition
• ESOP
• Etc.

The sleeping bag analogy is particularly relevant to process innovation and the innovation process, as the targeted reach required to unblock resources (in this simplistic example being space), was the only leverage needed to remediate the blockage. It didn't require anything more than creating space where I thought there was none – I was counting on the pressure exerted against the portion of the sleeping bag already in the sack to do the pushing for me, when in fact, it was fully compressed already; making the chore of pushing exponentially harder. When one looks at the innovation process, this chain reaction not only creates the same resistance, but adds to it  from a human-dynamics perspective; as it produces ambivalence from very people you need engaged - because they are being pushed to do more or work harder when they already are. They`re often not the problem; rather the process is.

Without process innovation to go with your innovation process, pushing ideas down the same old channels will likely deliver the same old results in terms of quality, speed, engagement and overall success.

Leadership and ownership can come in many types and sizes; but whatever incarnation it happens to be in, no one can deny its value as a custodian of a mission and as the principal driver of deliverables; even if the end-goal is as small as one solitary idea.

That is why the concept of Individual Idea Championing has become so powerful to the innovation process; because it provides both the surrogacy and the motivation. Hereunder are three of the most important benefits:

1. Individual Idea Championing ensures that each idea has an owner responsible for its development, collaboration and progression – no matter what the eventual outcome may be. In fact, having Individual Idea Champions is more that the assurance of steps being followed - if properly engaged and recognized, these critical role players will bring the necessary resources to their part of the process to not only accelerate task execution and engage a greater pool of collaborators, their role insures an optimal level of idea development so that the next step of your process can hit the ground running
2. Individual Idea Championing also creates a tremendous distribution of labor; what with numerous and distributed nature tasks associated with each idea’s development, workflows and decision-making, it is increasingly difficult to manage multiple ideas centrally
3. Individual Idea Championing encourages the development owners to seek expertise on demand, rather than leave such important collaboration tasks to the “dumbness” of an automated routing system – after all, who can accurately predict what, when, who, why and how much of nay input such as data, knowledge or expertise an idea will need at any given touch-point of its journey towards a final decision?

Knowing the value that these process role players bring to the innovation process success equation begs a question:

Q. How many of these dynamos can a process have?

A. As many as you can imagine

This is the quintessential scenario of more being merrier - because as ideas begin to be implemented in greater numbers and corporate results confirm their value, idea championing takes-on a whole new momentum; which then feeds on itself. Now imagine that one can begin by having only Individual Idea Champions that are internal – and as your external communities become more adept at participating in your process, a select few could start championing external ideas for you; albeit with limited views, permissions and access to internal company information. You could literally have small platoons of Idea Champions tasking away to develop better ideas ever faster. All you had to provide is the leadership to create the environment.

It’s rather hard to imagine today, but not so long ago was a time when the streets were awash with money. Business was easy: you could buy your way into a good situation; or if things went wrong, you could usually find someone with the money to buy you out of a bad situation. Easy come, easy go. So long as you had access to money, any money, this would somehow get right.

Well as we all know, the opposite is our current reality and organic growth is king. Problem is, some folks if not many have forgotten just how this is achieved – worse yet, some have never had the chance yet to learn. And with the fast-approaching exodus of managers from the Baby Boom generation, the need to get good at innovating with what we have is at a new state of urgency. The intellectual and execution assets are there, but tapping into them to achieve meaningful outcomes will take a major shift in perspective; and engagement.

As corporations go, one of my favorite analogies is that of the circus elephant that is shackled when young – after many un-successful attempts at freeing itself, the animal abandons the effort as the discomfort of the cuff chaffing at its leg becomes too much to endure. Not realizing its brawn as an adult, the elephant mindlessly accepts its fate – despite having the mass and strength to now rip the retaining spike out of the ground in one lazy swoop.

Capital is still required for growth, but maybe we should look at an alternate currency: Innovation Capital

Corporations have an abundance of innovation capital available in the form of collective talent, energy, ingenuity, discretionary tasking and scale that can overcome the same type inertia – if they are properly accessed and channeled. And with the global credit crunch, lackluster economy and anemic employment statistics still ruling the day, the quick and permanent way out of this morass is through the self-determination and organic growth that only structured innovation can bring; regardless of size, industry or any other excuse one can choose to blame.

Can your circus elephant dance on its hind legs? Of course it can; just un-shackle it.

There is an integral ingredient to the Innovation Formula that is often overlooked or intentionally omitted. This CSF is one of the most powerful agents in the development of break-out ideas, yet it is routinely forgotten, or worse, dismissed for fears that one would be sharing information with would-be competitors; whether internal, external or both.

When it comes to innovation, nothing ventured, nothing gained; with the spoils going to the deserving victor. Fears are to be examined for sure, however in this case, you really aren’t taking that big of a risk; here's why:

• Firstly, with the right technology, one can avoid publishing those conversations, collaborations or ideas with just about anyone if one take the time to configure the right vigilance into their process
• Secondly, if one has a well-tuned and purposeful process in place that is supported from the top and has purposeful tasking throughout the organization, your time-to-market will eclipse that of any copy-cay; hands-down

Diversity in your innovation community is the catalyst that enables exciting discoveries and rapid development. This diversity comes in many forms:

How many successful TV shows are written by one person alone? How many cool new cars are the products of a single engineer? How many wild and graphic-rich new video games are produced by one lone programmer? Electronic Arts now has studios in more than a half-dozen countries – is that an accident? The war on talent doesn’t have to be won by acquiring all the brain-power on the planet – simply create an environment around your organization and/or its brands where people with desire, motivation and inspiration can converge to innovate. Give them the assurance of good outcomes, the tools to truly create and the meaningful ties to collaborate – and watch what this creative outlet can produce.

It has been my experience that every so often, I run into people who just know what to say at the right time, luck into the right situations and figure stuff out from a far less complicated plane than the rest of us when they happen to get into a tough spot. In the world of the daily grind, these folks as are rare as Moon Rocks…and represent the exception rather than the rule.

For the rest of us mere mortals, we need intellectual leverage to consistently achieve the same vaunted outcomes.

Lucky for us in the innovation management space, there is a ready-made solution to tap into: It’s called collaboration.

Now as obvious as that sounds, the application and practice of collaboration can sometimes be miss-guided or simplistic; in other instances, it is downright miss-managed. Like with so many other endeavors, the forces of collaboration need to channeled in order to achieve the desired result. This means:

• opportunistic ideation
• purposeful engagement
• relevant workflow routing

To get the right parties together and doing the proper things at the optimal moment is almost akin to JIT procurement logistics; but with many elements of variance thrown-in with the constants to add a layer of complexity. That is why one of the CSFs called for is a highly configurable platform that covers the content, development phases, communications, actions, timelines, follow-ups and measurements of every idea, participant and deliverable in the process. Because the collaboration picture can fast get convoluted, keeping a grip on all the activity so that things happen in the order they were meant to, at the right time and with the proper stakeholders is the glue that hold the innovation process puzzle together.

Having participants engaged based on interest, availability, expertise and serendipity of conversation is a huge accelerator that the right innovation platform can deliver; driving motivation levels, execution and innovation results up in a uniform pattern.

With speed, scale, diversity and complexity as demanding task-masters, the platform is the air that keeps the wings of collaboration aloft.

All too often, what is labeled as Open Innovation winds up being a glorified version of an idea free-for-all. A new rush of un-bridled ideas feeding into the same clogged channels choking their advancement. Open innovation can only work when it’s about process.

1. Collaborative idea building takes advantage of diversity, discrete labor and on-demand expertise – that’s open
2. Flexible processing enables dynamic workflows, contextual status changes and custom tasking – that too is open

By creating an Innovation environment that enables ideas to move in the path of least resistance enables folks to rally around the process organically. Support the whole with a technology that enables the action-ability while covering the natural bases that automation was ideally created for…and what do you get? An innovation process that can not only co-exist with your other corporate activities but one that can actually flourish within them.

This atmosphere can quickly become infectious, or as the management and new-media pundits like to call viral. Dollars are the kings of metrics and until these speak, your process isn’t worth a lick – when running a business with stockholders, that’s priority Number One. The interesting thing that occurs along the way, almost innocuously at first, is the socialization of a process that begins to shape a culture of collaboration. The dollars are the battle, but the culture is the war. And to conquer competition, you need real Open Innovation.

On one of my recent trips abroad, I was walking back to my hotel when I had a moment of reckoning. In a sensory overload, a smorgasbord of imagery, I noticed the mosaic of globalization in one scene. Here I was in one of the Continent’s great cities, watching people walk-by with their iPod buds plugged-in, talking on Nokia mobile phones, jumping into Toyota taxicabs and emailing on their Blackberries. Puma, Burberry and Gucci sported about – welcome to the world market.

This scenario could have played itself out just about anywhere on earth. Because unless you find yourself at a historical revival show, a cultural exhibit or a themed  restaurant, gone are the good old days when one saw lederhosen in Germany, wooden clogs in Holland or kimonos in Japan. Perhaps more noticeably than any other prompt and arguably the first to mobilize and institutionalize global innovation resources, fashion could be looked at as the bellwether of the global innovation phenomenon that now affects everyday items around our orb; one simply has think of their favorite Nike item and where it was designed, made and purchased.

Now for this globalization to create best-of-breed products, innovation has to play a central role – after all, when faced with the choice of buying two products of equal merit, national pride would naturally drive the purchase decision to the brand of one’s own country first; however, if things are not equal, the better product wins regardless of origin.

This dynamic, of course, did not happen on its own and certainly didn’t germinate in the vacuum of nationalistic fervor, restrictive borders or the insular confines of corporate R&D departments – this great innovative expansion required alternate talent and different perspectives; or what I like to call innovation diversity. Our organizations have increasingly diversified their make-up, expanded into new regions and are catering to further-away markets. But the question now is: have we diversified our innovation process? To answer that question intelligibly, we need to look at our innovation bio-sphere and assess its diverse purpose, functions and participants. If we are still doing the same things but with a new group of people, are we getting the maximum mileage from our innovation fuel? Are we engaging people in new and different formats to go beyond mere conversation in order to create measurable value? Are we taking advantage of desires, affinities and availability to leverage our own innovation process?

There is always room for improvement – in the case of Open Innovation, the payoff is exponential. Season’s Greetings to all our readers – here’s wishing you all a safe and prosperous 2010 !!