Tech Innovation Blog

In time of extreme stress and financial crisis, the illusionary and amorphous benefits of innovation are exposed to intense illumination and frequently wither under the intense heat. Their end measurements or much touted “paradigm shifts” are yielding less than expected, budgeted, or promised. A consequence is executive and investor disbelief in new models of operation and the solution sets that act as catalysts for their anticipated achievement.

So as we collectively reach $1 trillion in MBS direct write downs and suffer a major lost of 52,000 jobs from a single employer, will the “new” innovators be any better in helping the industry with survival operations and integrations than the prior ones? Ah, relevance.

How many of us invested in technology, process improvements, third-party research, and consultants only to find out that internal performance was no better than our competitors? More to the point, frequently these integrations and implementations were marginal in weathering the storms as their touchpoint implications led to “unintended consequences.” Did the innovative IC encased within those solution sets really help predict the current crisis? Curious.

Now, as the situation appears to have another year of pain forthcoming, we are blasted with “new innovations” and ideals from the familiar firms and iconic figures that seek to help us survive. However, as we cast a jaded eye on the “new” set of promises and hype, have we now reached the real challenge and intent of innovation? Perhaps.

Innovation is a curiously non-linear and strange belief that what we do and have today is never good enough. It is hardwired into the human psyche and shows itself in new compliance solutions, automation of many forms, technological compartmentalization (e.g., SaaS, SOA), process improvements, and of course “e” capture and management solutions. However, innovation is only innovative if it is pragmatic and dare I say relevant. However, relevance is usually achieved with people who are able to leverage the ideal for a greater result. An axiom.

So what is the moral to my outwardly strange, random line of thoughts this week? As we know, when Daedalus (of Greek mythology) was trying to escape Crete, he fashion a new innovation to overcome his challenges – a pair of wax, leather, and feathered wings. As he and Icarus flew, he warned his son that his innovation had limitations and that he should not exceed the “design specifications.”

Like many so enamored with innovation and their early successes, Icarus pushed his product to its breaking point. As an industry, as organizations, as vendors we have done this as well. We have fallen into the sea as the result of personnel not fully appreciating the limits of our euphoric inventions – however this time, we have taken millions with us including national economies.

You see, it is the people that must support the innovations. Run too far in front and no one appreciates the implications (I’m accused of doing this all the time). Execute too slow and the markets pass you by. Drucker alluded to this conundrum two decades ago.

However, just because we failed to innovate properly, does not mean that we stop trying or hire new talent that is very different from our old operating models. People will be the key to sustainable innovation and without these individuals, innovation cannot be made organizationally relevant let alone adaptable (which is why we have evolved from waxed wings to supersonic travel).

Perhaps organizations need to rethink roles and responsibilities moving into 2009? I wonder if executives and organizations will finally realize that they need a matrixed holistic innovation role outside of the siloed functional responsibilities. If we cannot cross-correlate the innovative principles, ideals, and solution sets across divisional initiatives where “experts” routinely exceed the “design specifications” of any given approach, how can we be assured of avoiding unintended consequences yet again?

In closing ask yourself these questions before you part with hard fought organizational treasury and political capital:

1. How are these individuals both internally and externally who are asking for engagement, different from our existing base and culture (i.e., is different good)?

2. Are these the same personnel who cycle from organization to organization every few years simply pushing the same old thing in a new wrapper?

3. If we select this person or the vendor solution, what will we do to ensure we are not dependent upon them for years to come (e.g., governance, transition, interoperability)?

4. Are our advisors and professional services teams the same people who were part of failed institutions who are now advising us? Is that clever or even warranted?

5. Are we looking beyond our existing networks to get the best-in-class personnel (e.g., from outside the industry) aligned with our current and future ability to deliver?

Icarus is an analogy for our self inflicted, mortal wounds. Let us remember them well and move forward as Daedalus did. We are not done with counting the casualties as we have 12 to 18 months to go. We must, however, be done with hiring the same old people, vendors, lobbying groups, and advisors if we are to truly innovate within our “design specifications.”