Last time, we discussed templates to help firms prosper in the new age of business, the so-called, Information Age. One of my core precepts is that, "The Machine Age was about using repetitive process to manufacture standard, adequate products. The Inforrnation Age is about using innovation to deliver unique and compelling products" [1].
That creates problems, because traditional companies are centered on standard processes run by bureaucracies. Management's role is to optimize, keep order, and allocate resources. The problem is that a Borders cannot become an Amazon.com, or a DEC a Dell, Or an AT&T a Cisco through incremental improvement or standard processes.
Today's World holds a myriad of futures, most beyond our control, and some beyond our present imagining. Only an environment that encourages discovery and experimentation allows a firm-or a nation for that matter-to thrive under such chaos [2]. The old models don't allow that.
The result is a form of insanity. Companies keep doing what they are doing with increasing frenzy, even though they know it is not working. Their methods, and bureaucracies are so embedded that they can t change. I was recently interviewed by Fortune about how a once-award-winning firm was going out of business in one of the best markets possible. The firm did things right but not the right things [3].
The Envelope, Please . . .
The smartest thing we do whel1 we give the award is to disregard all that. Instead, we select candidates based only on a sustained record (five years or more) of exceptional business results. We filter down to a short list those who excel through innovation and will let us examine how they do it. The winner must present how they won at an International Conference [4].
Past winners range from May tag to Hewlett Packard and from U.S. Robotics to Herman Miller. A moment of epiphany came when an older judge observed, "I kept thinking that if I did this long enough, I'd find two that were alike, but they are all different." It was true. Each firm had its own distinct, unique style.
I knew that that "unique and compelling" was better than "standard." I'd just never been able to prove it. Today, I have more evidence, but I still can't prove it. Some things are not provable, and I one is the future. As Margaret Wheatley said, "There is no reality except what we create by interacting with events" [5].
Instant Results
After all, if I really knew what I was doing, I could just tell them the one best way, couldn't I? I don't think so. As a colleague said, "Prescription without diagnosis is malpractice."
Fortunately, I don't have to prove the need for discovery and involvement to potential winners. Two stellar companies that come to mind are Intel and Hewlett Packard. Both are intensively and assiduously increasing their ability to innovate. Both are violating standard processes.
That is interesting because Craig Barrett's best known contribution at Intel was the invention of "copy exactly" by which all manufacturing plants were identical, down to the color of paint. Had he picked the best plant design? Unlikely. But it allowed Intel to "ramp" quickly and made them an 800-lb gorilla in semiconductor manufacturing. Today the same Craig Barret, as CEO, is betting Intel's future on innovation [6].
Innovation is not just an engineering issue. It is increasingly a corporate-level issue.
You can contact John through The Trudel Group, 33470 Chinook PL, Scappoose, OR 97056; +1 503 638 8644; fax +1 503 543 6361; jtrudel@gstis.net;www.trudelgroup.com
I also serve as an examiner and judge for an "Outstanding Corporate Innovator" award. It is given by al1 organization with a diverse membership that spans practitioners (firms that build things), academics, and a few service providers like myself. Naturally, each of us has our own "best methods." Our parent organization evel1 has its own "best practices" book.
Unfortunately, the expectation of a standard best answer is so deeply embedded that it is not even discussed. Managers sometimes expect me to visit for a few hours and solve a problem that has plagued them for years. Most seem surprised when I say it takes more time and explain that I'd need to get involved and do some work.
Endnotes
[1] G.Ungson and J.Trudel, Engunes of Praosperity, London: Imperial College Press, 1998.
[2] V.Postrel, The Future and Its Enemies. New York: The Free Press, 1998.
[3] P.B.Gray," Dead company walking," Fortune Small Business, pp.64-70, Feb./Mar.2000.
[4] If you'd like an application brochure, please send me a note.
[5] M.J.Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1994.
[6] "The New Intel", Business Week,pp. 110-124, Mar. 13, 2000.