La fórmula de la innovación

Hola.
En la Infobrand de diciembre leí un artículo sobre Tom Kelley… lo googleé y esto fue lo que encontré. Copio dos notas que levanté (la primera en inglés, la siguiente en español)
 
Resalto estas frases:
– “Innovation begins with an Eye (que suena como la letra i) es decir mirando y observando”, no es una luz pero está relacionado con lo que ya leímos de Seth Godin sobre el “Zooming”.
– It’s easy to dismiss something that we don’t really understand, and because it is so easy, we do it routinely.  Innovation, for example, is arguably the best approach we have for managing the risk of today’s uncertain business environment.  It is a powerful way of looking at work, and yet we have done it a great disservice.
We continue to confuse the idea of creativity (or more appropriately, invention) with innovation.  While one is about developing great ideas, the other is about translating those ideas into action, so we can create value for customers and the organization.  They are not the same thing, but we think they are, leaving us free to wrongly dismiss innovation as too soft and not essential to day-to-day operations”.
 
 
1- PRIMER ARTÍCULO
 
The Innovation Equation: An Interview with Tom Kelley
Source: Executive Update
Feature
Published: December 2001
Innovation takes the concept of “new” a step further by adding “value” to the success formula, believes Tom Kelley, one of the major creative forces behind the success of IDEO design firm and author of The Art of Innovation. The best news? According to this Executive Update interview, any organization can become innovative — if it develops the right culture and leadership.
 
 
It’s easy to dismiss something that we don’t really understand, and because it is so easy, we do it routinely.  Innovation, for example, is arguably the best approach we have for managing the risk of today’s uncertain business environment.  It is a powerful way of looking at work, and yet we have done it a great disservice.
We continue to confuse the idea of creativity (or more appropriately, invention) with innovation.  While one is about developing great ideas, the other is about translating those ideas into action, so we can create value for customers and the organization.  They are not the same thing, but we think they are, leaving us free to wrongly dismiss innovation as too soft and not essential to day-to-day operations.
Given our shared confusion, it is hardly surprising that association professionals pay little or no attention to innovation.  In an effort to bring new clarity to innovation’s opportunities and challenges, Executive Update turned to Tom Kelley, author of The Art of Innovation and general manager of the world-famous IDEO design firm. For more than 20 years, IDEO has guided hundreds of clients through a strategic innovation process that has led to the creation of thousands of new products and services.  Kelley was a speaker at last month’s Center for Association Leadership Center Experience Conference, where he delivered his straightforward message:  innovation does matter, especially today, and those who choose to ignore it assume even greater risks.
 
EXECUTIVE UPDATE:  What is the art of innovation, based on your experience?
KELLEY: The key element of the art of innovation is treating life as an experiment — living with the idea that you need to continuously try things as opposed to just sticking to the knitting.
 
In talking about this, we often put the words “creativity” and “innovation” together, sometimes using them interchangeably.  How do you view the difference between creativity and innovation?
I actually tend to shy away from the word “creativity.”  You will see it on the cover of the book, but I would not have put it there.  The publisher gets to write all of the cover text.  I tend to use the word “innovation” a lot more than the word “creativity,” and the reason is that creativity seems like an inherent trait.  It is very easy for people, especially businesspeople, to say, “You know, I am not really very creative.  I don’t do that kind of thing,” and for them to just close the door on the topic.
But “innovation” sounds like something that can be learned — something that can be acquired — so I find it is a less frightening word, especially for businesspeople, and they are more open to embracing it.
 
Another challenge around this is that people attach the adjective “innovative” to a lot of things, and it often becomes simply a buzzword with no meaning.
People are starting to use the word “innovative” when they previously would have used the word “new.”  I think the distinction we should make is that anything that you do that is different is “new,” but innovative is new in a way that adds value.   I think it is a fair question to ask, “Is this truly innovation?   Does this add value?  Or is this just some new feature that is built on because somebody thought they could do it?”
 
IDEO had an interesting experience with “Nightline” that you talk about in the book.  Can you describe what that was about?
Sure.  The crew from ABC News came in and said, “We want to see innovation happen.”  So on Monday at 9 a.m. they gave us a topic — grocery shopping carts — and we had until Friday at 9 a.m. to recreate this product category to demonstrate innovation.
We went through all the steps we normally go through; we just did them incredibly quickly.  We went through the “understand” and “observe” phases in just one day.  We watched people shopping.  We met a guy who fixes shopping carts for a living.  I actually went to a shopping cart buyer to figure out what he looks for.
Then we went into the “visualize” phase the morning of the second day.  We start prototyping things, and some of the carts are really stupid.  They are all really ugly because they’re all done in one day.  We’re talking about foam, cord, and wire — the cheapest, quickest materials we could get.  The next step was to evaluate and refine.
We looked at what we had, which was a pretty broad range of prototypes.  We asked, “What here is of any value to people?”  Then we narrowed it down to the stuff we think people are interested in. There are safety issues.  There is the shopping process to consider.  And then we narrow it down to refine the final product.  That happened basically Thursday night from about 5 p.m. until about 8 a.m. Friday morning, while the paint was still drying.
Then we showed it to the ABC News people.  The highest-risk portion of the whole show was when they wheeled the thing down the street to a grocery store and showed it to real humans—shoppers and store managers—and said, “Hey, what do you think?” We were pretty vulnerable at that moment, and then they said nice things.
 
As an organization composed of pathological innovators, what new things did you learn about innovation as a result of this intensive experience?
Well, two things.  We learned that it is possible to do something like this in that kind of time frame, so we have offered that service much more to clients because we have greater confidence, having done it once, in our ability to do it.  Now, when you are done, you don’t have a product that is ready to ship, obviously, but you do have a blast of new ideas, and clients really tend to like that.  That was one of the things.
Second, it prompted us to expand our IDEO University service.  More and more people came to us and said, “Look, I don’t have a product or a service I want you to work on.  I just want some of your distilled culture.”  IDEO University is a one- to three-day event that gives clients the essence of our approach in that very short period of time.
 
You have talked about thinking about “innovation” more as a verb than as a noun.  As a practical matter, what does that mean for someone inside an organization who is trying to really move an organization forward?
The smartest person in the world sitting at a desk cannot figure out what new service they could be offering because they are the providers of the service.  They are not the consumers of the service.  You need to get out and ask people questions.  There is not that much magic in the innovation process.  It is the willingness to take some personal risk, to try some things you haven’t tried before.
One of the classic cases I use in the book is Charles Schwab.  He had this one big innovation at the beginning, which was discount brokerage.  His subsequent innovations looked kind of stupid.  Each of them failed in its own way, but in the process, he did a few things that were great.  For example, he got everybody in the organization to say, “Hey, we are going to try some stuff. Hey, guess what? That one didn’t work. We are going to try something else.”  He created a culture of innovation.
There also was some luck involved in this.  Schwab brought in software people who made those failed products who just happened to be really agile at doing the online stuff when that became available.  He positioned himself, having first been the innovator in the discount brokerage, to be the innovator in online trading. I believe he would never have been the leader in online trading had he not been practicing with all of those failures along the way.  He succeeded because of his willingness to go forward when he was not having great success.
There is a Winston Churchill quote about that: “Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”  That is certainly true of the Charles Schwab story.
You folks at IDEO are very successful at innovation because this is really what you are all about.  How much of successful innovation is about technique and how much of it depends on organizational culture?
It certainly is in large part culture — so then the question becomes, “How much can you shift the culture?” Technique alone will not do it.
I think one of the real tests is what the CEO says right after a failure, because all the window dressing in the world won’t fix it if every time somebody makes a misstep they get called on the carpet or fired or whatever.  It says to employees, “Never mind what I said about risk-taking. You still get canned if you make a mistake.”
That is one of those critical moments where you have to figure out what is important to the culture in the long run. What you want is a culture in which you reward big successes and big failures, and you only punish inaction.  I recommend that people find a way to start small and pick a group to change, and then let that group act as kind of a virus to infect the rest of the organization.  That is one of the best ways to make cultural changes.
 
Everyone is talking today about how knowledge is the new major factor in achieving productivity. How does the flow of knowledge fit with the innovation process inside an organization?  How do you see those two things connecting?
It is the synthesis of knowledge in the organization that in many cases allows you to innovate.  In our client work, we do a bunch of interviews and observations.  Then we let that all rest in our head and try to find a way to make some spark come out of that.
Organizations should allow serendipity to happen, because I believe that all of the magic is at the intersection of disciplines now.  You cannot win the game just by having better engineers or better marketers than the people down the street.  You can’t win. Someone is always going to come along who is better.  The magic is at the intersection between anthropology and engineering and marketing or whatever, where you cluster things in a different way, and you say, “Hey, here is something people need that they didn’t know they needed.”
 
 
2- SEGUNDO ARTICULO
 
Tom Kelley, CEO de IDEO
“La innovación tiene mucho que ver con la pasión”
 
El creador del Mouse se presentó en ExpoManagement 2007 y explicó a los ejecutivos presentes los principios básicos de la innovación.
Kelley hizo hincapié en la importancia de innovar para poder crecer en los mercados y así superar a los competidores que se “queden esperando” sin hacer nada por progresar. Aunque que afirmó que no todos pueden ser creativos: “La innovación tiene mucho que ver con la pasión”, afirmó. “Muchos sufren el efecto de ‘la Reina Roja’, como en el cuento de ‘Alicia y la Reina Roja’, en donde las protagonistas corrían pero sin avanzar. Por eso yo les digo que no es suficiente avanzar sino que hay que hacer un doble esfuerzo al hacerlo”, agregó.
Acto seguido, enumeró los tres principios básicos de la innovación:
1.- Factores humanos. Si queremos innovar, la forma de hacerlo es conociendo la psicología de nuestros clientes y la de nuestros competidores. Siempre hay que abordar problemas nuevos. Para esto, hay que contar con los empleados que sean capaces de percibir cuáles son las necesidades de nuestros clientes. Al final, el consumidor nos los va a agradecer.
2.- Prototipos. Hay que utilizar el sistema de ensayo y error. Esto es avanzar al éxito a través de fallas. No importa el tiempo que nos lleve intentar: Tenemos que tomar riesgos. No traten de garantizar el éxito a la primera vez. Hagan sus experimentos lo menos costosos posible y rápido en el tiempo para probar y probar. Los prototipos deben ser de bajo precio, así vamos a poder hacer varios hasta lograr el que alcance las necesidades de nuestros clientes.
3.- Diseñar buenas experiencias para los clientes. Tenemos que centrarnos en las experiencias de los consumidores con nuestros productos, ya que ellos son los que van a hacer que la marca sea exitosa o no. Diseñen mejores experiencias para los clientes. Hagan cosas que sirvan para su bienestar pero al mismo tiempo que su experiencia sea placentera y grata.
HSM Argentina, 2007

 
 

Deja un comentario

Archivado bajo Comunicación, Estrategia, Management

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s