The Innovation Journey - Improve it or lose it - Van de Ven
Mapping the Innovation Journey – Van de Ven et al
This chapter provides a useful map of the innovation journey in the context of innovation efforts within big business organizations and an entrepreneurial start up. Though the cases presented are limited in context, this framework, distilled from so many excellent works on innovation process, provides considerable opportunity for application to innovation efforts within environments such as public policy, small and family business, non-profit organizations, education, etc.
For example, our use of the blog can be examined through the lens of this map. I have observed “The Initiation Period” (23) since the spring 2007 semester, when one of my classmates in Leadership for the Common Good created a class blog just to see if anyone would use it. The process continued last fall as this same person in a class led by Professor Crosby created a very useful online forum for his geographically dispersed project team.
We are the “innovation personnel” in “The Developmental Period” (23) and as participants in this seminar, exhibit characteristics of an innovation team: we participate in fluid ways, choosing where and when we add content, we are doing this on a part time basis while engaged in more traditionally structured class work, some frustration and pain has been discussed, and our “top manager” has intervened as a mentor to help us refine the norms and requirements, and long after we disperse as a class, further development will probably take place in other classrooms before blogs become a universal tool at the Humphrey Institute.
True to the assertion that “Innovation, adoption and implementation occurs throughout the developmental period…” we are also in the “Implementation/Termination Period (24) “integrating the new” blog with the “old” WebCT system.
Our class blog project appears to be relatively benign. Though the outcome may mean significant change in how graduate seminars function, there are not significant financial resources or academic careers at stake. Failure in this context, however that may be defined, will not result in rolling heads, which is contrary to Van de Ven’s finding that there are no second chances in the business world for innovation leaders whose projects fail to generate bottom line results. (62) This is a disturbing disconnect between organizational values and the innovation management process. Every organization in Van de Ven’s MIRP study that espouse a “permission to fail” value aimed at encouraging innovation merely pay lip service to the idea.
Is this no second chance characteristic due to the way innovation leaders must behave in their quest to obtain resources? Do institutional norms in large organizations lead innovators to compromise their integrity by projecting overly optimistic outcomes in order to win resources? Does the need to promise results along strictly defined and often abbreviated time lines in order to win resources from management increase the odds that an innovation project will fail? Or is the real culprit the lack of proper training for innovation project managers? What sort of training or set of values would help leaders who allocate resources be more kindly disposed to their struggling project managers and slow the over optimism rush of the common fast track timeline into more sustainable innovation efforts?
As we look at another innovation model, the Crosby and Bryson’s “Policy Change Cycle”, this chapter provides many useful insights. One that resonated with me relates to their “Implementation Phase”. Van de Ven concludes that implementing a few aspects of an innovation in many project sites, and offering some control by the site managers is a more successful approach than having a deeper demonstration of the innovation at one pilot project site. This strategy may prevent bureaucratic inertia by decentralizing the innovation while simultaneously building a coalition of practitioners who will support adding more aspects of the innovation to their operations. It will also prevent early derailment of the innovation due to a focused attack by opponents on the one pilot project. Multiple sites with autonomy also foster an evolutionary environment that may enrich the effectiveness of the innovation itself.
Finally a thanks to Scott Marshall whose posted discussion of values in organizations provided an important insight for my approach to this posting.
Login to the blog
Post a new entry
Subscribe in a reader
Comments
Although this piece was focused on innovation in the business sector, I saw multiple correlations to my work with nonprofits. The Innovation Journey cycle they outline is very similar and even the overly ambitious projections made by managers in order to win resources is the same. Nonprofit managers and development directors are probably even more guilty than private businesses of painting grand pictures of success that embellish the truth. They need to in order to survive. It's the no second chance rule.
Failed project ideas will not be re-funded. Failing non-profits are high-risk for foundations and are unlikely to receive grants. Any hint of failure scares away individual donors, volunteers, organizational partners, etc. The no-second chance policy is absolutely necessary in the face of limited resources and time.
I wouldn't say that managers who promise ambitious results have compromised their integrity (unless they are outright lies). If you shoot for the stars, you might get the moon.
Posted by: Janelle | February 26, 2008 11:36 AM