If a problem can be solved with money, then arguably, it is not really a problem!!
Most companies, especially big ones try money before they try creativity and thinking from first principals.
To my mind, this is one of the reasons that smaller companies are inherently more creative, they must be. They simply do not have the money to throw at a problem. They have to be scrappy, to hustle, experiment, and invent a way to address the problem without a pile of money.
One of the several strategies big companies deploy to manage their Innovation programs, is to be very sensitive to the activities of start-ups, even invest in a few. When one of the small bets looks like a winner, buy them out.
Solves the innovation problem for them, short term. It offers a big payday for founders, so may be good for them as well. Problem is that many such innovative start-ups that have been purchased are suffocated by the culture that prevented the big acquiring company innovate out of its own optimised way of thinking.
Being innovative requires being sub optimal, scrappy, unsure, and often wrong. Which executive in a big company is going to go to their boss and ask to be put in charge of something that might not work, will disrupt the existing status quo, require investment and time, and probably fail? On top of that, these volunteer intrapreneurs in large companies want to be paid as they would be on the optimised and secure world of the corporate behemoth.
Counter intuitively, it turns out that the lack of money can be a competitive advantage small companies have over big ones. The challenge is to keep the effort going in the face of the never-ending bills that arrive to be paid immediately.
Header cartoon credit: Scott Adams and Dilbert on Innovation. Right again!
