Dialogues on Sustainability, Leadership and Resilience
A call for innovation
“Many of the things you do in the name of continuous improvement are the polar opposite to what you need to do if you were committed to continuous innovation”.
The quote is from innovation expert Darrell Mann who held a presentation at the Technical University of Denmark last week, which I was fortunate enough to attend.
So why do focus so much on improvements? In the business world we talk LEAN and Six Sigma … in the environmental discussions we hear the community talking about reducing CO2 emissions to a level where the temperature will “only” be raised by 2 degrees. I am worried that the latter - in spite of all the good intentions - is “too little, too late”. For example I read in another article: "The current annual rates of tropical deforestation from Brazil and Indonesia alone would equal four-fifths of the emissions reductions gained by implementing the Kyoto Protocol in its first commitment period, jeopardizing the goal of Protocol to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the climate system."
The theory of Systematic Innovation, which Darrell Mann talked about, is based on the simple principle, that whatever problem you are facing has already been solved somewhere else (by someone or something that needed to do so). “All" you need to do is find the system (industry, organization, nature, etc.) that has been forced to solve the problem, and replicate their innovation process. (For a 15 minute run-down of the theory by Darrell Mann himself, see http://www.systematic-innovation.com/movie/SI.html).
For this purpose, Darrell Mann and his research team have been studying patents since 1996 and reengineered the truly innovative ones to try and uncover the DNA of successful innovation; the result being a database with more than 3.000.000 data points that can help innovators ask the right questions.
When I asked Darrell Mann if he had used his techniques on environmental issues, his answer was: “We managed to spend a million Euros of EU money a few years ago to build a systematic innovation toolkit specifically focusing on environmental problems. At the time we finished the development, there seemed to be little interest from organizations around Europe. We’re starting to see some interest (finally) this year. Albeit more in Asia and Australia than Europe.”
So why is it that we turn to improvement before innovation? In my personal opinion, the reason is that it is the nature of innovation to have no predictable result … which in turns means that to a decision maker innovation equals risk. Improvement on the other hand does seem to have predictable outcomes.
We are in a situation where improvement is not enough! What we need is a drastic change - what we need is innovation … and it is up to the leaders of the world (at all levels) to step up to the challenge and take some risk. Be innovative! Let your surroundings be innovative – even though you don’t know where it will take us.
The quote is from innovation expert Darrell Mann who held a presentation at the Technical University of Denmark last week, which I was fortunate enough to attend.
So why do focus so much on improvements? In the business world we talk LEAN and Six Sigma … in the environmental discussions we hear the community talking about reducing CO2 emissions to a level where the temperature will “only” be raised by 2 degrees. I am worried that the latter - in spite of all the good intentions - is “too little, too late”. For example I read in another article: "The current annual rates of tropical deforestation from Brazil and Indonesia alone would equal four-fifths of the emissions reductions gained by implementing the Kyoto Protocol in its first commitment period, jeopardizing the goal of Protocol to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the climate system."
The theory of Systematic Innovation, which Darrell Mann talked about, is based on the simple principle, that whatever problem you are facing has already been solved somewhere else (by someone or something that needed to do so). “All" you need to do is find the system (industry, organization, nature, etc.) that has been forced to solve the problem, and replicate their innovation process. (For a 15 minute run-down of the theory by Darrell Mann himself, see http://www.systematic-innovation.com/movie/SI.html).
For this purpose, Darrell Mann and his research team have been studying patents since 1996 and reengineered the truly innovative ones to try and uncover the DNA of successful innovation; the result being a database with more than 3.000.000 data points that can help innovators ask the right questions.
When I asked Darrell Mann if he had used his techniques on environmental issues, his answer was: “We managed to spend a million Euros of EU money a few years ago to build a systematic innovation toolkit specifically focusing on environmental problems. At the time we finished the development, there seemed to be little interest from organizations around Europe. We’re starting to see some interest (finally) this year. Albeit more in Asia and Australia than Europe.”
So why is it that we turn to improvement before innovation? In my personal opinion, the reason is that it is the nature of innovation to have no predictable result … which in turns means that to a decision maker innovation equals risk. Improvement on the other hand does seem to have predictable outcomes.
We are in a situation where improvement is not enough! What we need is a drastic change - what we need is innovation … and it is up to the leaders of the world (at all levels) to step up to the challenge and take some risk. Be innovative! Let your surroundings be innovative – even though you don’t know where it will take us.
Comment
-
Comment by Jacob Rønnow Jensen on December 9, 2009 at 1:03am -
Innovation can be defined as a discontinuous change or “shift” which results in a feasible, more effective/valuable solution to an existing problem.
Upon reading your response, Christer, it dawned on me that re-inventing oneself (self-innovation?) bears many of the same characteristics as innovation in the business world. As individuals we also need continuous self-innovation, and not just continuous self-improvement.
This is exactly the reason I am here on OWC: to subject myself to other people’s thoughts on leadership and sustainability in the hope of bumping into a contradiction or something counter-intuitive (for me … at this moment in time).
These contradictions can maybe be turned into insights about my own purpose and role in life; insights, which need to be implemented afterwards. And implementation is the key … without it, there’s no forward momentum, and we’re get stuck with our existing habits and excuses!
It is may claim, that we all (more or less) know what needs to be done to get to the next “level” – what discontinuous changes we need to make (don’t worry, there’s always a “level” after that) - and yet it always seems so hard to get the implementation right.
I think it is interesting to read Darrell Mann’s comments why the large majority of change initiatives attempted within organizations will fail ... but I think it is even more interesting, and poses even bigger questions, when I read it in the context of self-innovation.
"1. NO COMMITMENT; NO SUCCESS (the obvious one)
If the person in charge has not bought fully into the change initiative, it will fail
If the person in charge has delegated responsibility for the change to someone else, it will fail
2. INITIATIVES DRIVEN BY EGO WILL FAIL
A difficult one, but the overwhelming body of evidence vividly shows that if the person responsible for the change initiative is driven by personal ego motives, the initiative will fail as soon as the ego moves on. People can be coerced into doing any number of things – like satisfying the whims of an ego-driven manager – but they will inevitably revert to their previous state as soon as the coercion disappears.
3. NO SUCCESS WITHOUT CRISIS
People will naturally migrate to a point of least stress. Change implies more stress; hence people tend not to like change. When there is a crisis, however, stress is already high and people are much more likely to pull together to solve the crisis and return to a lower stress state. Almost 100% of all successful change initiatives have been borne of a crisis – whether it be naturally occurring or manufactured.
4. THE WILL AND BELIEF THAT YOU CAN BE WORLD’S BEST AT SOMETHING
If you don’t think you are or could never become the best in the world at whatever it is you are trying to change – however tight the niche – then again your initiative will fail
5. FEAR = FAILURE
If anyone inside the organisation correlates change to loss of employment – irrespective of whether that belief is true or not – any change initiative will fail"
-
Comment by Christer Soderberg on December 5, 2009 at 1:21pm - I fully agree, it's time to let go of fear and grasp the opportunity to do something new, without holding on to the old. Let's face it; it's all the "innovation" we have been doing so far that has gotten us into this mess! True innovation has nothing to do with the past, it's about seeing things as they are; nakedly, without assumptions. Let's take a quantum leap into a wonderful new future! We can do it! The alternative, doing nothing, or doing "business as usual" is a lot worse!
Support Our Projects
Donations go to Open World Foundation and its projects, i.e. Replanting a Rainforest. For more information visit:
www.openworldfoundation.org
www.replantingarainforest.org
Badge
Photos
Open World Café Rio
by Christer Soderberg Added May 31, 2010 at 10:34pm 1 Comment
Replanting a Rainforest - FAF Lot 2 - Photo Updates
by Christer Soderberg Added March 20, 2010 at 9:05pm
Replanting a Rainforest - FAF Lot 2
by Christer Soderberg Added November 19, 2009 at 1:27pm
Helena's 27+ Party
by Christer Soderberg Added November 10, 2009 at 3:49pm
© 2010 Created by Christer Soderberg.
Powered by 
.
You need to be a member of Open World Café to add comments!
Join Open World Café