A recent interview on Textile World’s website had EDANA’s Scientific & Technical Affairs Director, Marines Lagemaat, asking question of keynote speaker Omar Hoek, executive vice president at Ahlstrom-Munksjö.

They were speaking about how difficult it is to manage innovation and many companies used a stage-gate process.  Mr. Hoek commented that the desire to manage using a stage-gate process came from wanting a clear predictable target and trying to organize efforts around current business infrastructure: structural, budgeting and accountability.

Also, he said that today we see many different types of innovation: fast pace and sometimes slow-paced, random behaviors, existing versus new technology, with or without external partners and more. “
It gets very complex,” he stated, “to make a one size fits all model for … innovation.”

It’s true that business loves predictability and structure. Innovations are often “revolutionary” or disruptive and so appears at odds with predictable core systems and structure. But nothing is further from the truth. Innovators love to take things that appear to be at odds and create synergies. That’s one of the things I love most about innovation.

So what do I mean?

Read More

I just read an interesting article by John Winsor, a contributor to Forbes.com.  The title of the article is

Don’t Put The Word ‘Innovation’ On Business Cards.

Here’s the link to the article.

SUMMARY:

The idea of the article - as I understand it - is that innovation 
centers, special innovation units, or skunk works creates a silo in a
company's culture. It's unfavorable because it breeds demotivation, 
and could create serious brain-drain if the company hits hard times
and the unit is disbanded or scaled back or if someone leaves the 
company. Instead, embed innovation throughout the entire company; 
don't isolate it.

MY COMMENTS ON MR. WINSORS’ ARTICLE:

March through the Steps of Innovation

This is today’s rallying cry. Businesses leaders intone it, government officials cantillate it, employees worry about it, and whole industries are moving to embrace it. We call it ‘innovation cheerleading’ because lots of people know innovation will help us compete, therefore they talk about it; but very few people know how to do it, so… they talk about it.

• It is not enough to just speak about the importance of innovation.
• It’s not enough to just generate lots and lots of ideas. Brainstorming is not the same as innovation.
• And finally, it is not enough to just support innovation – this is critical to understand. Supporting innovation or creating an environment of innovation is nice to have but it is not necessary.

Innovation is produced by taking step-by-step action, by marching through a process that delivers results. Yes; there is a structured methodology for innovation, as counter-intuitive as that seems.

For some gifted few this process is instinctive and happens repeatably (Edison, G. Washington Carver, Eliza Murfey and Marion Donovan). For the vast majority, however, the act of innovation is like a lightning strike. It happens infrequently and below the surface of consciousness; therefore, there is no control and it is nearly impossible to manage.

As executives, we need innovation to become procedural within our organization. We need to schedule, track, and measure it. Once it is manageable it’s as useful as other business processes: cost reduction, Lean, optimization, new product development, inventory turns, and supply chain management. We need innovation to be repeatable, predictable, and positively impact our bottom line and align with our priorities.
Read More

Sandy Smith wrote an article for ehstoday.com titled, “Former President of Chemical Company Sentenced for Federal Crimes Related to Employee Deaths“. This in turn caused Joseph Wesley, a safety professional,  to write the following comment:

And he is absolutely correct. I really do not want to short-sell the importance of the constant drum beat regarding safety, but that is just the first step for safety. It is a countermeasure rather than a solution. So much more is needed.

In our safety book co-authors Brion K. Hanks and Scott Burr join me in saying,

“In regards to the unspoken cold war between production 
and safety, we have noticed that some industry leaders 
are expending enormous amounts of activity with relatively 
minor new achievement. Safety as a discipline needs an 
upgrade and a reboot. The result of this delusion (that 
activity equals achievement) is that people are routinely 
hurt and killed on the job...
...One of the reasons we succumb to trading-off safety for 
schedule or profits is because management and 'designers' 
throw problems over the wall instead of taking full 
accountability for what they create. All of this 'tossing 
off of responsibility' lands squarely on the worker in the 
field in bad weather with pressures and dangers all around. 
This is the worst place to try and solve problems that 
should have been solved upstream....”

Safety needs to be more systematic.

Read More

He starts the article this way,

"Here is a quick way to judge whether your company will continue 
to be successful: can you tell your CEO that you spent the morning 
tinkering around with an idea? If the answer is yes, you are in 
good shape. If no, start looking for another job.

Successful companies know that the path to innovation isn't 
a straight line. Profitable growth is a messy, roller-coaster 
process that involves almost as many setbacks as victories. 
If you succeed in everything you do, you aren't aiming nearly 
high enough.

I get frustrated when companies talk and talk and talk about 
innovation, while simultaneously making it nearly impossible 
for their employees to tinker around. Tinkering is what drives 
innovation, not talking."

There is much that I agree with in Bruce Kasanoff’s article, but there are some big disagreements as well. In the spirit of lively conversation, here are my comments:

Bruce Kasanoff, you are correct. There are a few reasons why tinkering is so valuable: (1). You allow your brain to enter another state of being – it’s not linear, driven, goal-oriented. If you learn to recognize that “creative/tinkering” brain-state then you can enter it more easily and on-demand. The ability to move into and out of states-of-being is very valuable for serial innovators. You need to learn to develop that skill if you want to innovate reliably. (2). Developing your persistence ‘muscle’ is also vital to innovators because innovation generally takes effort and you cannot cave-in at the first obstacle. There are lots of reasons why innovators need to persist. It is a basic characteristic of great serial innovators.
Read More

A Quality Assurance Manager asked, “When does continual improvement actually begin?“. Here was my response:

It begins in the minds of each worker the second they begin to work. It begins in the hearts of a leader (whether they be employee or manager) the instant they accept responsibility to make things better.

You see, every single employee develops work momentum the more they perform their job. They improve their processes so they can do a better job (or the same job) with less effort. This is the nature of our brains. Human brains love resource efficiency. Since every single employee will be “continuously improving” their work, it’s management’s job to make sure that those “improvement” benefit the company and not just the employee.

The first time someone develops or defines a metric for improvement and that metric is accepted, then that may be the start of an OFFICIAL improvement plan. The improvement continues as long as there is someone to work on it. (Although my husband left his employer years ago, he still offers CI suggestions to his old employer much to their profit and chagrin.)

Bottom line: CI begins when any employee accepts responsibility.

I read a blog article at the Huffington Post by Judith E. Glaser called, “Innovate or Evaporate“. This is a good article about innovation,  but I have one disagreement her statements about fear limiting innovation. In a nutshell she says,

"When fear 'owns our brains' we cannot think creatively... All we think about is how to protect ourselves."

There are indeed processes that happen consistently within the human brain. We have responses to inputs that travel in ‘ruts’ or along strong synapse paths. In these cases inputs create a cascade of reactions. Fear can cause a cascade of reactions that does indeed ‘close down’ the creative parts of our brain and get us stuck in protection mode. But, and this is a big ‘but’, it doesn’t need to. A person can train their brain to respond differently to fear – interrupt the cascade – deflect the automatic response – and react more usefully and creatively. Serial innovators train themselves to be able to change states.
Read More

Here are two quotes from the father of TRIZ. I think they get to the heart of what TRIZ is.

“I became more and more interested in the mechanics of creativity. How were
inventions made? What happens in the head of the inventor?” – Genrich Altshuller

“Although people who had achieved a great deal in science and technology talked of the inscrutability of creativity, I was not convinced and disbelieved them immediately and without argument. Why should everything but creativity be open to scrutiny? What kind of process can this be which unlike all others is not subject to control?…What can be more alluring than the discovery of the nature of talented thought and converting this thinking from occasional and fleeting flashes into a powerful and controllable fire of knowledge.” – Genrich Altshuller

A Quality, Safety and CIP  Manager asked, “What are some of the most effective tools that you have used to prevent repeatable defects in a manufacturing plant? We are trying to improve our FPY but continue with inconsistent results.” Scott’s and my response was:

Great leaps in quality come when you can characterize the process and understand what key factors lead to successful quality outcomes. It’s all about the process.
Read More

I just read a blog by Pearl Zhu at at her blog . She says

Here is my response to this list:

I like what Ms. Zhu says about “innovation involves the collective capability to adapt to changes – adaptability is key.” The ability to continuously assess the situation is vital. Persistence, resilience, courage: these are all important characteristics. Also, cross-pollination is critical.

But I have to argue quite strenuously with several ideas.
Read More