All species, including humans, are inherently adaptive, yet the organisations humans inhabit are by their nature resistant to change.
The management challenge of the future is to figure out how to build an organisation that evolves sufficiently quickly to be ahead of the changes occurring in the environment around them so as to be in a position to exploit and leverage those changes rather than just reacting to them.
What a cliché this has become, and you hear it all the time, like most cliches, it has become so common, we need to go a step further. Outside the box, outside the room, outside the building? How far outside is far enough?.
Surely it is more a matter of thinking differently, looking at the facts through a different set of eyes, not just seeking a way out solution that is the point here. It doe not much matter how far outside the box we are, it is how we interpret the box, and what is in it that counts
Running a qualitative consumer research group recently, one of the participants surprised me with a metaphor that made great sense.
She said that the web had taught her to “forage”, her term, looking for stuff of interest, checking out the Sku’s available in a category far more widely than previously, when she had a modest “basket” of regulars, with a pecking order, and that did not change much from month to month. This reminded her of the behavior of the farm dogs she had as a kid, always looking for something to eat, in different places, and always nuzzling something new when it became available, and then deciding if it had any interest.
The implications are pretty clear. Experimentation within categories, and into adjacent categories may have been encouraged by the transfer of the “nuzzling” behavior we undertake every day as we cruise the web, looking for tit-bits of interest.
Sku numbers in supermarkets have exploded over the last 20 years, and I always thought it was just the drive for shelf presence and often minor differentiation in an effort to attract consumers that had driven it, but perhaps there is something more primal in our reaction to variety.
Successful innovation rarely comes from a formulaic approach where the marketing department has a brainstorm, prioritises the outcomes, then they progress through a “gated” process culminating in a launch.
Usually it comes from three sources:
These three factors are mutually supportive, but scoring 2/3 is simply not good enough for consistently superior performance.
Another of the management paradoxes littered through this blog , and this one is counter to almost everything I have ever written.
In the context of true innovation, listening to customers exclusively leads you to adjusting, improving, repackaging what you currently have.
Real innovation is about inventing the future, and you cannot do it just by playing with the present.
The following challenge is if you are smart enough to invent the future you also have to be smart enough to recognize it when you see it.
Kodak did not see digital photography, but they invented it, IBM struggled to see that the PC would take over from big box computing, Microsoft did not see the web, until it had almost passed them, but Steve Jobs did see touch as the replacement for the mouse, which he originally saw as the devise to democratize personal computers.
Can you imagine the changes that would have occurred in the behavior of the tobacco industry in the 70’s and 80’s had there been the “net-enabled” communication tools available then, when the big tobacco companies were conducting a rear guard action against those who sought to have the lethal effects of tobacco on health made public.
Simply, they would not have got away with 20 years of denial, the ridicule circulating via blogs, twitter, Digg and all the rest would have been overwhelming.
When you think about it, the negative reaction that would have occurred may have been better than all the public advertising that has gone on since the 80’s, sanctimonious adults telling youngsters what to do (again) whilst still taking the taxes.