Killing Innovation by Asking Too Many Questions

by Mark Prus

A recent article on the Harvard Business Review blog site discussed how you can kill innovation by asking too many questions. Having spent over 25 years in Corporate America, I can relate. I have seen many novel ideas get 'Murdered by Management' through a steady stream of questions. I have even seen Management use the "question everything about a project I don't like" technique as a means of wearing out the proposer and making the project go away.

I do agree with the article's conclusion that you can often "...substitute early action for never-ending analysis." It is always a good idea to start small, gain experience, tweak and try it again.

But I am not sure I agree with the premise that asking questions is bad. After all, isn't curiosity a foundation of the innovation process?

When I was running the innovation function of my business unit, I was used to getting a lot of questions about the projects I was working on. What I tried to do was separate the questions I could answer right away and the questions that would take a lot of analysis to answer. I'd keep a list of issues that required further analysis, and attempt to gain understanding via research as the project developed. And I would always report back to Management and give them updates on what I had learned.

Asking questions often reveals new opportunities and potential for upside. And yes, sometimes asking a lot of questions reveals a fatal flaw that kills the project. But when would you rather discover that fatal flaw? Early in the project or after you have committed significant time and energy to it? Isn't that one of the jobs of Management?

Does asking a lot of questions kill innovation? I don't think so. I believe a leader who can handle the 'heat' of the "what about?" questions can deftly manage the questioning and in fact use it to his/her advantage.

What are your thoughts?


Don't miss an article - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Mark Prus is a marketing consultant who offers a name development service called NameFlash^SM.

What's in a Name?

Lessons in Insights & Innovation From Anti Monkey Butt Powder

by Mark Prus

I am a professional name developer, and I like to gather opinions about product names. Earlier this year I posted a Twitter Poll to gather opinions on Anti Monkey Butt Powder... Good Name or Bad Name? The results indicated that about 70% of people thought Anti Monkey Butt Powder was a bad name.

However, the real learning came from the comments I received about the posting. The people who thought it was a bad name were making fun of the name and the product. The people who thought it was a good name were people who suffered from what might be described as a "chafed butt" due to extended horseback riding or motorcycle riding or truck driving. Several claimed to be consumers of the product and they were very defensive about the name... they thought it was perfect.

So what is the lesson on insights and innovation? It is very simple... do a great job of developing consumer insights behind your product and those insights will lead you to terrific ideas, such as a novel name for your product that speaks loudly to your target market. Who cares about the majority of people who might ridicule your product? What you should really care about is the "passionate minority" who will turn into loyal fans!

The owners of Anti Monkey Butt Powder did a terrific job of identifying with their very narrow target market. The "problem" of having a chafed butt is not one that everyone has, but if you do have it, you understand what Anti Monkey Butt Powder is designed to do. If you do not have this "problem" then it really does not matter what you think because you will never buy this product.

I chose Anti Monkey Butt Powder for the Good Name Bad Name poll because I thought it was a clever name, but when the passionate responses came in from people who identified with the product, I loved the name even more!


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Mark Prus is a marketing consultant who offers a name development service called NameFlash^SM.

Crowdsourcing Innovation vs. The Economics of Elitism

by Mark Prus

Which Is Better?

A recent article in The New York Times discussed the innovation process at Apple. Clearly the process begins and ends with Steve Jobs. And clearly Mr. Jobs is a creative genius. He also has a lot of help with top notch design engineers. As a result, Apple is perceived as one of the most innovative companies on the planet.

If you have visionary leadership at your company, this might be a good way to go. But companies like Procter & Gamble (P&G) also have strong leadership and they have taken a different route to innovation. P&G has been a leader in Open Innovation, and many of the new products they have launched in the past few years have come from outside the company.

Which approach is better? Some say that Crowdsourcing produces a lot of good ideas, while "home grown" innovation is capable of producing bigger breakthrough ideas.

I love Apple (full disclosure: I own Apple stock and am a big fan of their products). However, I am not sure that the "elitism model of innovation" is one that can be expanded to a lot of companies. I believe that Steve Jobs is a true visionary, and that people like him come along far too rarely for this to be a workable model of innovation. It does work for Apple... but how many other companies can implement it?

Your thoughts?


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Mark Prus is a marketing consultant who offers a name development service called NameFlash^SM.