Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 22 2007, 7:33 AM EST (current) | laschmitt | 11 words added, 8 words deleted |
| Dec 22 2007, 7:26 AM EST | laschmitt | 822 words added, 81 words deleted |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
There are many companies that offer tools for innovation. One example is a company called OVO. They have a couple catchy trademarks – Innovate on Demand™ and Concept to Cash™ – and state that their objective is ‘working to define software applications and processes to help firms Innovate on Purpose™. They currently have five software applications:
· Brainstorming tool (Spark)
· Ideas management tool (Incubator)
· NPD tools (Develop)
· Project management & workflow (Launch)
· Goals & metrics (Scorecard)
These are all very good tools, well conceived and implemented with great user interfaces. They are useful and valuable, but are they 'innovation' tools? Certainly, they are useful to innovators. They are also useful in supporting an innovation process and innovation activities. But do they get at the 'essence' of what innovation is. There is no doubt that just using these tools (and others like them) will not make some osone or some organization more innovative by themselves. So just what do these tools do for you and what is a true 'innovation' tool?
In thinking about tools, it is useful to discuss the relationship between tools and methods and skills and techniques. For the purposes of discussing innovation, since innovation is a knowledge creation process, a simple and straightforward way of thinking about these terms is to think about tools and methods as the 'know what', the explicit knowledge of what to do, and skills and techniques as the 'know-how', the tacit knowledge of how to do something.
Knowing what to do, and how to do it, are very distinct and different things. Think about a carpenter with a toolstool box. A carpenter can have a complete set of tools, the best hammer, saw, screw drivers etc., but that does not make them a good carpenter. Knowing how to choose the right wood, how to make a good cut, what nail to use, how to arrange and join pieces in a structure that serves it's purpose in the best way, these are all necessary skills for an expert craftsman. These are their skills, the 'know-how' of carpentry that gets translated into the specific techniques of their practice.
Now consider that in addition to their toolbox full of hamers,hammers, saws, screwdrivers etc., the carpenter also had a device that told them exactly where to saw a piece of wood, that let them see the quality anfand type of a piece of wood, that showed them the best structural construction of the thing they were building. These are now tools that start to convert the 'know-how' into the 'know-what'. There is still skill and technique involved in using these tools, but it is of a different type than before these tools existed.
The nature of innovation (and pretty much any other human endeavor) is that, over time, people figure out how to convert skills and techniques into ever more sophisticated tools and methods. For innovation, we are still very early in this process and the tools that exist are still very primitive and rely on the tacit know-how, the skills and techniques of the practitioner. This is why many of the innovation tools being promoted are so dissatisfying. They are still at the hammer and saw level, not at the guiding construction level.
Often, the term 'tool' is used to denote a method that has been codified in some way, either as a software program, or as a written procedure. It is useful to think about innovation tools as falling into one of the four categories below.
Category 1 tools are things like excel spreadsheets, mind maps and idea management systems.systems. They are very useful and valuable (and necessary) but they are the hammers and saws of the innovation process. In Category 2 are tools like TRIZ,TRIZ, Theory of Constraints,Constraints, advanced search, Conjoint and virtually every other form of statistical analysis etc. These are, again, very useful and valuable tools, but they themselves won't get you to innovation.
The more interesting tools for innovation start to emerge as you get to categories 3 and 4. Tools that help you decide what information and knowledge is needed and that help or guide you in obtaining that information and knowledge. In category 3 are tools like Quality Function Deployment (QFD), Persona Modeling, tools etc. Category 4 is the most advanced, and also the most difficult, category of tool to create and use. These are tools like Voice of the Customer (VoC), Opportunity Discovery, Community Building etc. With these tools, one is finally using tools that convert the tacit know-how of the innovator, their skills and techniques, into the know-what of specific methods and tools. This is when the carpenter gets the device that shows him how to turn a pile of lumber into the beautiful cabinet that someone wants.
Category 3 and 4 tools enhance the innovation process by giving specific guidance about what information and knowledge is valuable and how to obtain this information and knowledge. They may also (or may not) include the category 1 and 2 tools that assist in organizing and manipulating the knowledge. This is another source of frustration and disappointment with the current crop of innovation tools. Even those category 3 and 4 tools that purport to be complete innovation tools, fall down when it comes to actually providing support for the every day blocking and tackling work. Any time you hear of a tool that contains 'a list of questions to ask', or has a step in it such as 'then prioritize the ideas' you have found a tool that suffers from this lack of completeness. This is 'finessing the hard stuff', where the work of how to answer the question, prioritize the idea etc. is left to the imagination.
In summary, using tools like Mind Maps, iThink, Incubator, TRIZ, Groove etc. to organize, manage, share and manipulate information and knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for innovation. They don’t actually support the essential work involved in the day-to-day innovation process. They supply some of the infrastructure, but not the process. What we need are tools that actually support the knowledge discovery, synthesis and insight actions central to the innovation process.
· Brainstorming tool (Spark)
· Ideas management tool (Incubator)
· NPD tools (Develop)
· Project management & workflow (Launch)
· Goals & metrics (Scorecard)
These are all very good tools, well conceived and implemented with great user interfaces. They are useful and valuable, but are they 'innovation' tools? Certainly, they are useful to innovators. They are also useful in supporting an innovation process and innovation activities. But do they get at the 'essence' of what innovation is. There is no doubt that just using these tools (and others like them) will not make some osone or some organization more innovative by themselves. So just what do these tools do for you and what is a true 'innovation' tool?
In thinking about tools, it is useful to discuss the relationship between tools and methods and skills and techniques. For the purposes of discussing innovation, since innovation is a knowledge creation process, a simple and straightforward way of thinking about these terms is to think about tools and methods as the 'know what', the explicit knowledge of what to do, and skills and techniques as the 'know-how', the tacit knowledge of how to do something.
Knowing what to do, and how to do it, are very distinct and different things. Think about a carpenter with a toolstool box. A carpenter can have a complete set of tools, the best hammer, saw, screw drivers etc., but that does not make them a good carpenter. Knowing how to choose the right wood, how to make a good cut, what nail to use, how to arrange and join pieces in a structure that serves it's purpose in the best way, these are all necessary skills for an expert craftsman. These are their skills, the 'know-how' of carpentry that gets translated into the specific techniques of their practice.
Now consider that in addition to their toolbox full of hamers,hammers, saws, screwdrivers etc., the carpenter also had a device that told them exactly where to saw a piece of wood, that let them see the quality anfand type of a piece of wood, that showed them the best structural construction of the thing they were building. These are now tools that start to convert the 'know-how' into the 'know-what'. There is still skill and technique involved in using these tools, but it is of a different type than before these tools existed.
The nature of innovation (and pretty much any other human endeavor) is that, over time, people figure out how to convert skills and techniques into ever more sophisticated tools and methods. For innovation, we are still very early in this process and the tools that exist are still very primitive and rely on the tacit know-how, the skills and techniques of the practitioner. This is why many of the innovation tools being promoted are so dissatisfying. They are still at the hammer and saw level, not at the guiding construction level.
Often, the term 'tool' is used to denote a method that has been codified in some way, either as a software program, or as a written procedure. It is useful to think about innovation tools as falling into one of the four categories below.
- Category 1 – Tools that help organize information and knowledge
- Category 2 – Tools that help manipulate (analyze, synthesize, etc.) information and knowledge
- Category 3 – Tools that help determine what information and knowledge to get, learn, obtain
- Category 4 – Tools that help determine how to get the knowledge and information you need
Category 1 tools are things like excel spreadsheets, mind maps and idea management systems.systems. They are very useful and valuable (and necessary) but they are the hammers and saws of the innovation process. In Category 2 are tools like TRIZ,TRIZ, Theory of Constraints,Constraints, advanced search, Conjoint and virtually every other form of statistical analysis etc. These are, again, very useful and valuable tools, but they themselves won't get you to innovation.
The more interesting tools for innovation start to emerge as you get to categories 3 and 4. Tools that help you decide what information and knowledge is needed and that help or guide you in obtaining that information and knowledge. In category 3 are tools like Quality Function Deployment (QFD), Persona Modeling, tools etc. Category 4 is the most advanced, and also the most difficult, category of tool to create and use. These are tools like Voice of the Customer (VoC), Opportunity Discovery, Community Building etc. With these tools, one is finally using tools that convert the tacit know-how of the innovator, their skills and techniques, into the know-what of specific methods and tools. This is when the carpenter gets the device that shows him how to turn a pile of lumber into the beautiful cabinet that someone wants.
Category 3 and 4 tools enhance the innovation process by giving specific guidance about what information and knowledge is valuable and how to obtain this information and knowledge. They may also (or may not) include the category 1 and 2 tools that assist in organizing and manipulating the knowledge. This is another source of frustration and disappointment with the current crop of innovation tools. Even those category 3 and 4 tools that purport to be complete innovation tools, fall down when it comes to actually providing support for the every day blocking and tackling work. Any time you hear of a tool that contains 'a list of questions to ask', or has a step in it such as 'then prioritize the ideas' you have found a tool that suffers from this lack of completeness. This is 'finessing the hard stuff', where the work of how to answer the question, prioritize the idea etc. is left to the imagination.
In summary, using tools like Mind Maps, iThink, Incubator, TRIZ, Groove etc. to organize, manage, share and manipulate information and knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for innovation. They don’t actually support the essential work involved in the day-to-day innovation process. They supply some of the infrastructure, but not the process. What we need are tools that actually support the knowledge discovery, synthesis and insight actions central to the innovation process.
