innovation
One Successful Approach for Managing Innovation
When I owned a consulting company, we viewed innovation as an imperative. It was the main driver of differentiation, credibility, and opportunity. We had an innovation budget, solicited ideas from the team, and evaluated those ideas quarterly.
Almost as important to me was that this was fun. It allowed everyone on the team to suggest ideas and participate in the process. That was meaningful and supported the collaborative, high-performance culture that had developed. The team was inspired and empowered to make a difference, and that led to an ever-increasing sense of ownership for each employee.
The team also had a vested interest in having the process work, as quarterly bonuses were paid based on their contributions to the company’s profitability. There was a direct cause-and-effect correlation with tangible benefits for every team member.
We developed the following 10 questions to qualify & quantify the potential of new ideas:
- What will this new thing do?
- Be very detailed, as this was used to create a shared vision of success based on the presented idea.
- What problem(s) does this solve, and how so?
- This seems obvious, but selling this new product will be an uphill challenge if you are not solving a problem (such as “lack of organic expansion”) or addressing an immediate pain point.
- What type of organizations have those problems and why?
- This was fundamental to understanding whether a fix was possible from a practical perspective, what value that fix might have for the target buyer, and how much market potential existed to scale this new offering.
- What other companies have created solutions or are working on solutions to this problem?
- The lack of competition today does not mean you are the first to attack this problem. Due diligence can help you avoid repeating others’ failures by learning from their lessons and avoiding similar pitfalls.
- Will this expand our existing business, or does it have the potential to open up a new market for us?
- Each answer has upsides and downsides, but breaking into a new market can take more time and be more difficult, time-consuming, and expensive.
- Is this Strategic, Tactical, or Opportunistic?
- An idea may fall into multiple categories. When the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act became law, we viewed a new service offering as a tactical means to protect our managed services business and an opportunistic means to acquire new customers and grow the business. While this is not true innovation, it was an offering that flowed from this defined process.
- What are the Cost, Time, and Skill estimates for developing a Minimally Viable Product (MVP) or Service?
- What are the Financial Projections for the first year?
- Cost to develop and go to market.
- Target selling price, factoring in early adopter discounts.
- Estimated Contribution Margin Ratio (for comparison with other ideas being considered).
- Break-even point.
- Would we be able to get an existing customer to pre-purchase this?
- A company willing to provide a PO committing to purchasing the MVP within a specific timeframe increased our confidence in the idea’s viability.
- What are the specific Critical Success Factors to be used for evaluation purposes?
- This lesson learned over time helped minimize emotional attachment to the idea or project and provided objective milestones for critical go/no-go decision-making.
This process was purposeful, agile, lean, and fairly aggressive. We believed it gave our company a competitive advantage over larger companies that tended to respond more slowly to new opportunities and smaller competitors that did not want to venture outside their wheelhouse.
With each project, we learned, became more efficient and effective, and made better investment decisions that positively impacted our success. We monitored progress on an ongoing basis relative to our defined success criteria and adjusted or sunset an offering if it stopped providing the required value.
The process was not perfect…
For example, we passed on some leading-edge ideas, such as a “Support Robot” in 2003, an interactive program that used a pseudo machine-learning algorithm. It would be trained using historical log files, tested quickly and safely in a representative pre-production environment, refined as needed, and ultimately validated and rolled out.
This automation could have been used with our existing managed services and Remote DBA customers to further mitigate the risk of unplanned outages. Most importantly, it would have provided leverage to take on new business without jeopardizing quality or adding staff – thereby increasing revenue and profit margin.
At the time, we believed this would be too difficult to sell to prospective customers (“pipe dream” and “snake oil” were some of the adjectives we envisioned), so it appeared to lack a few items required by the process. Live and learn.
In summary, a defined approach to something as important as business needs innovation to grow and prosper, as best demonstrated by market leaders like Amazon and Google (read the 10-K Annual Reports to better understand their competitive growth strategies, which are largely based on innovation).
Implementing this approach within a larger organization requires additional steps, such as securing buy-in from a variety of stakeholders and aligning with existing product roadmaps, but it remains key to scalable growth for most businesses.
The Downside of Easy (or, the Upside of a Good Challenge)
As a young boy, I was “that kid” who would take everything apart, often leaving a formerly functional alarm clock in a hundred pieces in a shoebox. I loved figuring out how things worked and how components worked together as a system. When I was 10, I spent one winter completely disassembling and reassembling my Suzuki TM-75 motorcycle in my bedroom (my parents must have had so much more patience and understanding than I do as a parent). I rebuilt it by spring, and it ran like a champ. Beginner’s luck?
By then, I was hooked – I enjoyed working with my hands and fixing things. That was a valuable skill to have while growing up, as it provided income and led to the first company I started at 18. Learning always involved a fair degree of trial and error, but experience and experimentation led to simplification and standardization. That became the hallmark of the programs I wrote, and later, the application systems I designed and developed. It is a trait that has served me well over the years.
Today, I still enjoy doing many things myself, especially if I can spend a little time and save hundreds of dollars (which I usually invest in more tools). Finding examples and tutorials on YouTube is usually easy, and after watching a few reference videos, the task is generally manageable. There is also a sense of satisfaction that comes with a job well done. And most of all, it is a great distraction from everything else that keeps your mind racing at 100 mph.
My wife’s 2011 Nissan Maxima needed a Cabin Air Filter, and instead of paying $80 again to have this done, I decided to do it myself. I purchased the filter for $15 and was ready to go. This shouldn’t take more than 5 or 10 minutes. I went to YouTube to find a video, but no luck. Then, I started searching various forums for guidance. There were plenty of posts complaining about the cost of replacement, but not much about how to do the work. I finally found a post that showed where the filter door was. I could already begin to feel that sense of accomplishment I was expecting in the next few minutes.
But fate and apparently a few sadistic Nissan Engineers had other plans. First, you needed to be a contortionist in order to reach the filter once the door was removed. Then, the old filter was nearly impossible to remove. Then, once the old filter was removed, I realized the width of the filter entry slot was about 50% of the filter’s width. Man, what a horrible design!
A few fruitless Google searches later, I was more determined than ever to make this work. I tried several things and ultimately found a way to fold the filter small enough to get through the door, and it would fully open once released. A few minutes later, I was finally savoring my victory over that hellish filter change.
This experience brought back memories of “the old days.” In 1989, I was working for a marketing company as a Systems Analyst and was assigned the project to create the “Mitsubishi Bucks” salesperson incentive program. Salespeople earned points for sales and could later redeem those points for Mitsubishi Electronics products. It was a very popular and successful incentive program.
Creating the forms and reports was straightforward, but tracking the points (including generating past reports and adjusting activity from previous periods) was a problem. I finally considered how a banking system would work (remember, there were no books on building banking systems readily available before the Internet, so this was essentially reinventing the wheel) and designed my own. It was very exciting and rock solid. Statements could be accurately reproduced at any time, and an audit trail was maintained for all activity.
Next, I needed to create validation processes and a fraud detection system for incoming data. This was rock solid, but instead of being a good thing, it became a real headache and source of frustration.
Salespeople would not always provide complete information, might have sloppy penmanship, or engage in other legitimate but unusual practices (such as bundling and adjusting prices among items in the bundle). Despite that, they expected immediate rewards, and having their submissions rejected apparently created more frustration than incentive.
So, I was instructed to turn the fraud detection dial way back. I let everyone know that while this would minimize rejections, it would increase the potential for fraud and the volume of rewards. I created a few reports to identify potentially fraudulent activity. It was amazing how creative people could be when trying to cheat the system, and how quickly you could identify patterns based on similar activities. By the third month, the system was trouble-free.
It was a great learning experience from beginning to end. It ran for several years after I left – something I know because I was still receiving the sample mailing with new sales promotions and “Spiffs” (sales incentives) every month. Later, I wondered how many things aren’t being created or improved today because it is easier and less risky to follow an existing template.
We used to align fields and columns in byte order to minimize record size, overload operators, and other optimizations to maximize space utilization and performance. Our code was optimized for maximum efficiency because memory was scarce and processors were slow. Profiling and benchmarking programs brought you to the next level of performance. In a nutshell, you were forced to understand and become proficient with the technology used out of necessity. Today, these concepts have become somewhat of a lost art.
There are many upsides to being easy.
- My team sells more and closes deals faster because we make it easy for our customers to buy, implement, and start receiving value from the software we sell.
- Hobbyists like me can accomplish many tasks after watching just a short video or two.
- People are willing to try things they may not have tried before if getting started were not so easy.
However, there may also be downsides for innovation and continuous improvement, simply because ‘easy’ is often considered ‘good enough‘ so people do the minimum required and move on.
What will the impact be on human behavior once Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes a reality and is in everyday use? It would be great to look ahead 25, 50, or 100 years and see the full impact of emerging technologies, but I think I will see many of the effects in my own lifetime.
What do you think will happen?
Discussions that Seed the Roots of Creativity
A few months ago I purchased Fitbit watches for my children and myself. My goals were twofold. First, I was hoping that they would motivate all of us to be more active. Second, I wanted to foster a sense of competition (including fair play and winning) within my children. Much of their pre-High School experiences focused on “participation,” as many schools feel that competition is bad. Unfortunately, competition is everywhere in life, so if don’t play to win you may not get the opportunity to play at all.
It is fun seeing them push to be the high achiever for the day, and to continually push themselves to do better week-by-week and month-by-month. I believe this creates a wonderful mindset that makes you want to do more, learn more, achieve more, and make an overall greater impact with everything they do. People who do that are also more interesting to spend time with, so that is a bonus.
Recently my 14 year-old son and I went for a long walk at night. It was a cold, windy, and fairly dark night. We live in fairly rural area so it is not uncommon to see and hear various wild animals on a 3-4 mile walk. I’m always looking for opportunities to teach my kids things in a way that is fun and memorable, and in a way that they don’t realize they are being taught. Retention of the concepts is very high when I am able to make it relevant to something we are doing.
That night we started talking about the wind. It was steady with occasional gusts, and at times it changed direction slightly. I pointed out the movement on bushes and taller grass on the side of the road. We discussed direction, and I told him to think about the wind like an invisible arrow, and then explained how those arrows traveled in straight lines or vectors until they met some other object. We discussed which object would “win,” and how the force of one object could impact another object. My plan was to discuss Newton’s three laws of motion.
My son asked if that is why airplanes sometimes appear to be flying at an angle but are going straight. He seemed to be grasping the concept. He then asked me if drones would be smart enough to make those adjustments, which quickly led to me discussing the use potential future of “intelligent” AI-based drones by the military. When he was 9 he wanted to be a Navy SEAL, but once he saw how much work that was he decided that he would rather be Transformer (which I explained was not a real thing). My plan was to use this example to discuss robotics and how you might program a robot to do various tasks, and then move to how it could learn from the past tasks and outcomes. I wanted him to logically break down the actions and think about managing complexity. But, no such luck that night.
His mind jumped to “Terminator” and “I, Robot.” I pointed out that Science Fiction does occasionally become Science Fact, which makes this type of discussion even more interesting. I also pointed out that there is spectrum between the best possible outcome – Utopia, and the worst possible outcome – Dystopia, and asked him what he thought could happen if machines could learn and become smarter on their own.
His response was that things would probably fall somewhere in the middle, but that there would be people at each end trying to pull the technology in their direction. That seemed like a very enlightened estimation. He asked me what I thought and I replied that I agreed with him. I then noted how some really intelligent guys like Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk are worried about the dystopian future and recently published a letter to express their concerns about potential pitfalls of AI (artificial intelligence). This is where the discussion became really interesting…
We discussed why you would want a program or a robot to learn and improve – so that it could continue to become better and more efficient, just like a person. We discussed good and bad, and how difficult it could be to control something that doesn’t have morals or understand social mores (which he felt if this robot was smart enough to learn on its own that it would also learn those things based on observations and interactions). That was an interesting perspective.
I told him about my discussions with his older sister, who wants to become a Physician, about how I believe that robotics, nanotechnology, and pharmacology will become the future of medicine. He and I took the logical next step and thought about a generic but intelligent medicine that identified and fixed problems independently, and then sent the data and lessons learned for others to learn from.
I’m sure that we will have an Internet of Things (IoT) discussion later, but for now I will tie this back to our discussion and Fitbit wearable technology.
After the walk I was thinking about what just happened, and was pleased because it seemed to spark some genuine interest in him. I’m always looking for that perfect recipe for innovation, but it is elusive and so far lacks repeatability. It may be possible to list many of the “ingredients” (intelligence, creativity, curiosity, confidence (to try and accept and learn from failure), multi-disciplinary experiences and expertise) and “measurements” (such as a mix of complementary skills, a mix of roles, and a special environment (i.e., strives to learn and improve, rewards both learning and success but doesn’t penalize failure, and creates a competitive environment that understands that in most cases the team is more important than any one individual)).
That type of environment is magical when you can create it, but it takes so much more than just having people and a place that seem to match the recipe. A critical “activation” component or two is missing. Things like curiosity, creativity, ingenuity, and a bit of fearlessness.
I tend to visualize things, so while I was thinking about this I pictured a tree with multiple “brains” (my mental image looked somewhat like broccoli) that had visible roots. Those roots were creative ideas that went off in various directions. Trees with more roots that were bigger and went deeper would stand out in a forest of regular trees.
Each major branch (brain/person) would have a certain degree of independence, but ultimately everything on the tree worked as a system. To me, this description makes so much more sense than the idea of a recipe, but it still doesn’t bring me closer to being able map the DNA of this imaginary tree.
At the end of our long walk it seemed that I probably learned as much as my son did. We made a connection that will likely lead to more walks and more discussions.
And in a strange way, I can thank the purchase of these Fitbit watches for being the motivation for an activity that led to this amazing discussion. From that perspective alone this was money well spent.
The Unsung Hero of Big Data
Earlier this week, I read a blog post regarding the recent Gartner Hype Cycle for Advanced Analytics and Data Science, 2015. The Gartner chart reminded me of the epigram, “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” (asserting that history repeats itself by stating the more things change, the more they stay the same).
To some extent, that is true, as you could consider today’s Big Data as a derivative of yesterday’s VLDBs (very large databases) and Data Warehouses. One of the biggest changes, IMO, is the shift away from Star Schemas and practices implemented for performance reasons, such as aggregation of data sets, using derived and encoded values, using surrogate and foreign keys to establish linkage, etc. Going forward, it may not be possible to have that much rigidity and still be as responsive as needed from a competitive perspective.
There are many dimensions to big data: A huge sample of data (volume), which becomes your universal set and supports deep analysis as well as temporal and spatial analysis; A variety of data (structured and unstructured) that often does not lend itself to SQL based analytics; and often data streaming in (velocity) from multiple sources – an area that will become even more important in the era of the Internet of Things. These are the “Three V’s” people have talked about for the past five years.
Like many people, my interest in Object Database technology initially waned in the late 1990s. That is, until about four years ago, when a project at work led me back in this direction. As I dug into the various products, I learned they were alive and doing well in several niche areas. That finding led to a better understanding of the real value of object databases.
Some products try to be “All Vs to all people,” but generally, what works best is a complementary and integrated set of tools working together as a service within a single platform. It makes a lot of sense. So, back to object databases.
One of the things I like most about my job is the business development aspect. One of the product families I’m responsible for is Versant. With the Versant Object Database (VOD – high performance, high throughput, high concurrency) and Fast Objects (great for embedded applications like kiosks). I’ve met and worked with brilliant people who have created amazing products based on this technology. Creative people like these are fun to work with, and helping them grow their business is mutually beneficial. Everyone wins.
An area where VOD excels is with the near real-time processing of streaming data. The reason it is so adept at this task is the way that objects are mapped out in the database. They do so in a way that essentially mirrors reality. So, optionality is not a problem – no disjoint queries or missed data, no complex query gyrations to get the correct data set, etc. Things like sparse indexing are not a problem with VOD. This means that pattern matching is quick and easy, as well as more traditional rule and look-up validation. Polymorphism allows objects, functions, and even data to have multiple forms – something else that mirrors real life (just think about the variations of a peripheral device called a “printer”).
VOD and products like it do more by allowing data to be more, which is ideal for environments where change is the norm, such as: Cyber Security; Fraud Detection; Threat Detection; Logistics; and Heuristic Load Optimization. In each case, performance, accuracy, and adaptability are the key to ongoing success.
The ubiquity of devices generating data today, combined with the desire for people and companies to leverage that data for commercial and non-commercial benefit, is very different than what we saw 10+ years ago. Products like VOD are working their way up that “Slope of Enlightenment” because there is a need to connect the dots better and faster – especially as the volume and variety of those dots increases.
It is not a “one size fits all” solution, but it is often the perfect tool for complex data. More importantly, it is another tool to use in an ever-expanding data ecosystem.
These are indeed exciting times!
Ideas are sometimes Slippery and Hard to Grasp
I started this blog to be an “idea exchange,” as well as a way to pass along lessons learned to help others. Typical blog advice is to focus on one thing and do it well to build a following. That is especially important if you want to monetize the blog, but that is not and has not been my goal.
One thing that has surprised me is how different the comments and likes are for each post. Feedback from the last post was even more diverse and surprising than usual. It ranged from comments about “Siri vs Google” to feedback about Sci-Fi books and movies to Artificial Intelligence.
I asked a few friends for feedback and received something very insightful (thanks, Jim). He stated that he found the blog interesting but wasn’t sure of the objective. He went on to identify several possible goals for the last post. Strangely enough (or maybe not), his comments mirrored the type of feedback that I received. That pointed out an area for improvement, and I appreciated that as well as the wisdom of focusing on one thing. Who knows, maybe in the future…
This also reminded me of a white paper written 12-13 years ago by someone I used to work with. It was about how Bluetooth would be the “next big thing.” He had read an IEEE paper or something and saw potential for this new technology. He used the example of your toaster and coffee maker communicating so that your breakfast would be ready when you walk into the kitchen in the morning.
At that time, I had a couple of thoughts. Who cared about something that only had a 20-30-foot range when WiFi had become popular and had a much greater range? In addition, a couple of years earlier, I toured the Microsoft “House of the Future,” where everything was automated and key components communicated. But everything in the house was all hardwired or used WiFi – not Bluetooth. It was easy to dismiss his assertion because it seemed impractical. The value of the idea was difficult to quantify, given the use case provided.
Looking back now, I see that white paper as insightful. If it was visionary, he would have come out with the first Bluetooth speakers, car interface, or even phone earpiece and gotten rich, but it failed to present practical use cases that were easy enough to understand yet different enough from what was available at the time to demonstrate the real value of the idea. His expression of the idea was not tangible enough and, therefore, too slippery to grasp and value.
I believe that good ideas sometimes originate where you least expect them. Those ideas are often incremental – seemingly simple and sometimes borderline obvious, often building on another idea or concept. An idea does not need to be unique to be important or valuable, but it needs to be presented in a way that makes it easy to understand the benefits, differentiation, and value. That is just good communication.
One of the things I miss most from when my consulting company was active was the interaction between a couple of key people (Jason and Peter) and myself. Those guys were very good at taking an idea and helping build it out. This worked well because we had overlapping expertise and experiences, as well as complementary skills and perspectives. That diversity increased the depth and breadth of our efforts to develop and extend those ideas by asking the tough questions early and ensuring we could convince each other of the value.
Our discussions were creative, highly collaborative, and a lot of fun. We improved from them, and the outcome was usually commercially viable. As a growing and profitable small business, you must constantly innovate to differentiate yourself. Our discussions were driven as much by necessity as intellectual curiosity, and I believe this was part of the magic.
So, back to the last post. I view various technologies as building blocks. Some are foundational, and others are complementary. To me, the key is not viewing those various technologies as competing with each other. Instead, I look for potential value created by integrating them. That may not always be possible and does not always lead to something better, but occasionally it does, so to me, it is a worthwhile exercise. With regard to voice technology, I believe we will see more, better, and smarter applications of it – especially as real-time and AI systems become more complex due to the use of an increasing number of specialized chips, component systems, geospatial technology, and sensors.
While today’s smartphone interfaces would not pass the Turing Test or proposed alternatives, they are an improvement over more simplistic voice translation tools available just a few years ago. Advancement requires tools that understand context to make inferences. This brings you closer to machine learning, and big data (when done right) significantly increases that potential.
Ultimately, this all leads back to Artificial Intelligence (at least in my mind). It’s a big leap from a simple voice translation tool to AI, but it is not such a stretch when viewed as building blocks.
Now think about creating an interface (API) that allows one smart device to communicate with another, like the collaborative efforts described above with my old team. It’s not simply having a front-end device exchanging keywords or queries with a back-end device. Instead, it is two or more devices and/or systems having a “discussion” about what is being requested, looking at what each component “knows,” making inferences based on location and speed, asking clarifying questions and making suggestions, and then finally taking that multi-dimensional understanding of the problem to determine what is really needed.
So, possibly not true AI (yet), but a giant leap forward from what we have today. That would help turn the science fiction of the past into science fact in the near future. The better the smart system’s understanding and inferences, the better the results.
I also believe that an unintended consequence of these new smart systems is that they will likely make errors or have biases like humans as they become more human-like in their approach. Hopefully, those smart systems will be able to automatically back-test recommendations to validate and minimize errors. If they are intelligent enough to monitor results and suggest corrective actions when they determine the recommendation does not produce the desired results, they would become even “smarter.” There won’t be an ego creating a distortion filter about the approach or the results. Or maybe there will…
Many of the building blocks required to create these new systems are available today. But it takes vision and insight to see that potential, translate ideas from slippery and abstract to tangible and purposeful, and then start building something cool and useful. As that happens, we will see a paradigm shift in how we interact with computers and how they interact with us. It will become more interactive and intuitive. That will lead us to the systematic integration I wrote about in a big data/nanotechnology post.
So, what is the real objective of my blog? To get people thinking differently, foster collaboration and partnerships between businesses and educational institutions to push the limits of technology, and spark discussion about what others believe the future of computing and smart devices will look like. I’m confident that I will see these types of systems in my lifetime, and I believe this could happen within the next decade.
What are your thoughts?
