Making Kids Eager to Learn More

Jenny Cornell, the Development Director of my old school, Lancaster Royal Grammar School, wrote this piece on the school's exciting new InspirUS programme... and I wanted to share it. - KR


You may well remember when you started secondary (high) school - fresh from the security and familiarity of your primary school - nervous, naive, anxious but determined to make it.

Did you have any idea what opportunities awaited you or how your life would turn out?

Perhaps you can now look back and appreciate what a great start you had - how it prepared you for what was coming next (though you might not have recognised it at the time).

Andrew Jarman, the Head of Lancaster Royal Grammar School, has introduced a really worthwhile initiative to help reach out to more kids like us. There are lots of bright youngsters around Lancaster today who come from ordinary family backgrounds where life may be tough. Sound familiar? These children would really benefit from the unique opportunities at LRGS which could lay a foundation for a life they never dreamed of!

The InspirUS project is a new and innovative programme to help unlock the talent in these youngsters. Over fifty primary schools in the Lancaster area will be included where bright boys and girls from any background will be invited to attend challenging masterclasses at LRGS.

The aim is to inspire these youngsters, to stretch and stimulate them to give them the skills and confidence they need to make positive changes in their lives. We hope that, through the programme, more children will be made aware of the opportunities available to them and that they become better informed about their prospects.

Thanks to the generosity of some old boys of the school, enough funding has been raised to launch the initiative. Specialist teacher, Kathryn Page, has been recruited to begin the work, visiting primary schools to work with the primary heads and teachers, talking through the benefits of the programme and helping to identify the children best suited for inclusion. The first tranche of youngsters was welcomed to the InspirUS classroom in January.

The children spend the afternoon exploring topics beyond their normal studies. Last week it was "Water Water Everywhere". After finding out about David Hockney, the youngsters produced their own artwork on watery themes, in the artist's style, listening to Louis Armstrong singing 'What a Wonderful World', and then did some quick-fire sums, with percentages and fractions, all based on how much water we use in the home and learned the meaning of a wonderful new word - ubiquitous.

This week the theme was "Is there anybody out there?!". To the soundtrack of David Bowie's Space Oddity, the children had fun imagining how they would communicate with alien species - by code. They cracked number codes, learned about Braille, discovered the strange language of Pig Latin and found out how to use binary code to reveal hidden messages. A cheer went up when it was revealed to them that the next session will be "May the Force be With You", complete with a visit from Darth Vadar...

The lessons are lively, pacey and great fun and with four sessions completed, the children are all eager for more... and more schools and parents are asking for their children to be included. Let's hope their experiences will, at least, ease their transition from primary school to secondary school and, even better, unlock their potential to make life changing choices.

- Jenny Cornell (text and images)


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

---

Kevin Roberts is the CEO worldwide of The Lovemarks Company, Saatchi & Saatchi. For more information on Kevin, please go to www.saatchikevin.com. To see this blog at its original source, please go to www.krconnect.blogspot.com.

Video Interview - Eric Liu - "Imagination First"

by Braden Kelley

I had the opportunity to interview Eric Liu, author of the new book "Imagination First" at a book event last night. I'd like to share a video interview I did with Eric before the event:



Interview - Eric Liu - Author "Imagination First" from Braden Kelley on Vimeo.


If you prefer YouTube, I've split the interview into Part 1 and Part 2 there.

Eric Liu was interviewed on stage during the event by Warren Etheredge and I'd also like to share some of the key insights from Eric's talk at the event:

• We all have the capacity for imagination, but as we grow up we are disincentivized to share it


• We need to teach kids to have respect for limits and to stretch their imaginations by giving them activities with limits and inviting them to create within those limits


• We need to be careful not to strip out the play from education


• "Play matters" - leaning forward versus leaning back


• We should practice imagination in the same way that we practice music, sports, etc.


• There are two main enemies of imagination


1. Expert Knowledge (we know it already)
   
2. Fear (of succcess, of being exposed, etc.)


• How do we sustain imagination in our little pocket of the organization and then how do we infect others with it?


• Next time something bad happens, try saying out loud "How fascinating!", then allow yourself to detach and observe as you work toward a solution instead of getting stuck in a fear loop.


• We want innovation right now, but you don't get the fruit without first planting the seed


• We need to make education speak to students' and teachers' motivations - More "what if?" and less "what is" - More project-based learning


• Out of all of the practices in the book, the most important one is "Failing Well"


• We must learn to fail better each time
  
• True with entrepreneurs
  
• True with politics


• There is an art to failing


• Failure is the real "f" word in our society

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

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Are MBAs becoming irrelevant?

by Idris Mootee

Are business schools preparing students for a flat world where organizations and national boundaries are becoming blurred?

Looking at this year MBA rankings by Financial Times, there aren't many changes in the Top 10 list. The surprise is that #10 is a Hong Kong Business School and #12 is an Indian Business School. Other top schools (some are more local) in the rankings: IMD (Swiss) ranks 15, HEC (French) ranks 18, CEIBS (Chinese) ranks 22, Haas (American) ranks 28, Cornell (American) ranks 38, Ivey (Canadian) ranks 49. Here's the latest FT Global Top 10 MBA Rankings for 2010:

1. London Business School
   
2. University of Pennsylvania: Wharton
   
3. Harvard Business School
   
4. Stanford University GSB
   
5. Insead
   
6. Columbia Business School
   
7. IE Business School
   
8. MIT: Sloan School of Management
   
9. University of Chicago: Booth
   
10. Hong Kong UST Business School

There are a lot of criticisms around MBA programs on different fronts. I was advising some folks that this is still the best all round business education. The last three months, I have written 4 recommendations for some folks. One was accepted by London Business School, one by Stanford Business School, one by Chicago Graduate School of Business and one by MIT Sloan. I am happy for all of them. I still think it is one of best paths to change the world.

There are arguments around whether it needs to be two years and almost all European MBAs are one year with only exception of LBS. The traditional two-year MBA curriculum, grounded in the core functional disciplines — strategy, marketing, organizational behavior, accounting, finance etc. — has been in existence since it was first pioneered in the US in the late 50s. MBAs were very much an American thing. US companies placed more value in an MBA than European companies. In the UK, a general management program combined with solid work experience is generally accepted to be sufficient.

The world of business is on the verge of transformation, a transformation, and so should business education. Where technological advance, geo-political forces, rapid globalization are all putting pressure on the business education system. I attended an event a while back at the Yale School of Management; there were 20 education institutions from around the world all struggling with the relevance of the MBA to 21st century organizations. Everyone sees the need for transformation but not many knows what and how to transform. Asking any B-school's Dean the question how their business schools must change to better prepare our students for the challenges that they will face in a hyper competitive and uncertain world is a good start.

Yes the world is flat. Organizations are becoming increasingly flat, and social technologies are blurring the boundaries of a corporation. Leaders of modern enterprises competing in the global economy need to look for truly global managers who are capable of leading and managing across the boundaries of function, geography, and organizations and industries. Are business schools ready for this? Or should we change the old paradigm that an MBA is an elitist qualification which can enable the holder of the degree to fast-track his/her career to power and fortune? An MBA should mean less as a qualification. It is a sense of empowerment and commitment for an individual to take on big challenges, transform oneself and create win/win strategy for shareholder, employees and societies.

Check out the lively discussion that has broken out in our Continuous Innovation group around this article - http://ow.ly/16hTy (join the group and see the 30+ responses)


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

---

Idris Mootee is the CEO of idea couture, a strategic innovation and experience design firm. He is the author of four books, tens of published articles, and a frequent speaker at business conferences and executive retreats.

Balancing Intuition with Analysis

Interview - Roger Martin of "The Design of Business"


I had the opportunity to interview Roger Martin, the author of "The Design of Business" about the challenges companies face when they fail to balance analytical thinking with intuitive thinking. We also discuss a variety of other innovation topics including: barriers to innovation, education, and risk taking.

Roger Martin has served as Dean of the Rotman School of Management since 1998. He is an advisor on strategy to the CEO's of several major global corporations. He writes extensively on design and is a regular columnist for BusinessWeek.com's Innovation and Design Channel. He is also a regular contributor to Washington Post's On Leadership blog and to Financial Times' Judgment Call column. He has published several books, including: "The Design of Business" and "The Opposable Mind".

Here is the text from the interview:


1. When it comes to innovation, what is the biggest challenge that you see organizations facing?

It is the dominance of analytical thinking which holds that unless something can be proven by way of deductive or inductive logic, it is not worthy of consideration or investment. No new idea in the world has been proven before being tried. So as long as analytical thinking is allowed to dominate, innovation is deeply and profoundly challenged.


2. Why is it so important that organizations teach their leaders to be design thinkers?

Design thinkers are capable of balancing the inductive and deductive logic of analytical thinking with the abductive logic of intuitive thinking. So they are capable of both honing and refining the past and inventing the future. Thus they can overcome the innovation challenge. Without design thinking leaders, an organization is likely to slowly but surely stultify - like most large corporations over time.


3. Why is it so hard for hard for managers to take valid risks?

Two main reasons. First, they live in cultures that value only analytical thinking. And second, they get Stockholm syndrome and begin to believe that is right. First they get dissuaded from innovating by others, then they dissuade themselves.


4. What most impedes the risk-taking necessary for innovation?

The problem is processes that imbed requirements for proof through inductive or deductive logic. And then the culture that this breeds.


5. Since the book was published, have you come across other leaders that have transformed their organizations to take more of a design approach?

Leaders from two of the world's largest companies read the book and both have asked me to help them transform their organizations to take a design thinking approach. So far, so good. They are very committed.


6. People often talk about not having time to innovate. How can people find the time for themselves or their employees?

That is a lame argument. People have time to do anything for which they are passionate. People blame lack of time for every single thing that they think they would like to do but lack the sufficient passion for. Innovators innovate regardless of their environment. Some get fired for it and go somewhere else and start over again. A leader can make it harder or easier for employees to innovate. But the innovators innovate regardless and the non-innovators complain about the difficulty finding the time to innovate - regardless.


7. What skills do you believe that managers need to acquire to succeed in an innovation-led organization?

They need to nurture their originality. Very few people in life are good at anything without practice. If you practice mastery all your life, you will be masterful. If you practice originality, you will get good at innovation. Most managers spend their time deepening their mastery and not nurturing their originality. Over time, they become fearful of innovation.


8. If you were to change one thing about our educational system to better prepare students to contribute in the innovation workforce of tomorrow, what would it be?

Make art a required subject for as long as we make math a required subject. We send a powerful signal to students that analytics are important and artistry is not. Artistry is the foundation of innovation. Most technologists will never innovate a single thing because their training drove out any artistry from them.


My book review of "The Design of Business" can be found here.

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Innovation Perspectives - Educating Tomorrow's Workforce

This is the tenth of several 'Innovation Perspectives' articles we will publish this week from multiple authors to get different perspectives on 'What product or sector is in desperate need of innovation?'. And to close off the week, here is my perspective on education:

by Braden Kelley


"We need our children to be Masters of Mystery and Einsteins of Insight." - Braden Kelley

When I first saw this topic I wanted to write about education innovation, but I resisted when a couple of the contributing authors chose this topic. I wrote about the publishing industry instead, but then this week I came across a Phil McKinney article and had the opportunity to meet Sir Ken Robinson, and my passions for an education revolution were stirred.

We sit at the nexus of amazing new education technology capabilities, the globalization of work, and an incredible transformation in the needs of employers. The path forward is not the same as the road behind, but our education system is proceeding as if it were.

Instead of pursuing the current education mantra of more, better, faster, we need to instead rethink how we educate our children because we need to prepare them for a different world. A world in which flexibility, adaptibility, creativity, and problem solving will be prized ahead of the deep technical knowledge that is fast becoming a commodity and easily available.

I've said here on Blogging Innovation that the keys to business success are insight and execution. We are ending an era of incredible business focus on execution excellence and are entering an era of an increasing business focus on insight. Excellent execution will always be valued and required, but more and more components of this execution are shifting from the developed world to the lower-wage developing world.

We are currently in a race to the middle when it comes to standard of living as the developing countries like China, India, Brazil and others climb up the pyramid and developed countries like the United States, Italy, Greece and others slide down. Those developing countries wanting to stay near the top of the flattening standard of living pyramid will have to re-tool their education systems to to prepare their populations to grab as big a share as possible of the higher-wage insight-driven jobs.

Here is an interesting chart from a Newsweek-Intel Study reformatted by Phil McKinney:


Looking at the differences in perspectives between the American and Chinese respondents in the research, I came to two possible conclusions:

1. I am Chinese
   
2. The United States (and many other developed countries) are headed in the wrong direction and better change course on education fast

You may think that my views on education are too business-focused, but look even the arts are being globalized (look at Cirque du Soleil).

I believe that we underestimate children's ability to understand the real world and I think that the education system and the business world need each other more than they realize. We need to re-imagine our public-private partnerships and expectations when it comes to education, and we need to start educating today's young kids for tomorrow's world.

The fact is that we are pushing the limits of taking today's understanding of science to improve productivity an standard of living. Going forward we will need to break through currently held physical and natural limits and an expanded understanding of our physical and natural worlds. This will require a new generation of scientists and workers who can synthesize approaches from different cultures and disciplines, that are masters of creative approaches to problem soliving, and that have the entrepreneurial spirit to breakthrough perceived barriers. Are these the kind of students we're eduating?

What kind of students is your country educating?

As an added bonus, if you haven't seen it, I encourage to check out Sir Ken Robinson's video on "Creativity versus Literacy" here:



You can check out all of the 'Innovation Perspectives' articles from the different contributing authors on 'What product or sector is in desperate need of innovation?' by clicking the link in this sentence.

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Innovation Perspectives - Rethinking University Education

This is the eighth of several 'Innovation Perspectives' articles we will publish this week from multiple authors to get different perspectives on 'What product or sector is in desperate need of innovation?'. Here is the next perspective in the series:

by Rocco Tarasi

Is there an industry more in need of innovation than education?

It is one of the largest industries in the United States, with over $1 trillion dollars spent annually. You are a consumer in this industry practically from birth until death. And yet most believe that the industry has lagged the pace of innovation so much that the education market today is comparable to the newspaper industry of 1999 - enjoying healthy profits before innovative start-ups disrupt their existing (archaic) business models.

The Washington Post recently wrote that:

"Students starting school this year may be part of the last generation for which 'going to college' means packing up, getting a dorm room and listening to tenured professors. Undergraduate education is on the verge of a radical reordering. Colleges, like newspapers, will be torn apart by new ways of sharing information enabled by the Internet. The business model that sustained private U.S. colleges cannot survive."


Students (and their parents) enrolled in higher education have experienced first-hand how strict rules conspire to make it harder to graduate on time - including the difficulty of transferring credits between schools and the difficulty in scheduling "core" classes that, for some reason, are never offered during the semesters you need them. According to the American Enterprise Institute, four-year colleges graduated an average of just 53% of entering students within 6 years.

At the same time that schools are working to keep you a student as long as possible, they are also increasing the cost. By how much? According to a FastCompany article, since 1990 the cost of college tuition has gone up more than any other good or service.

Maybe part of their problem is that they haven't figured out a simple concept called "economy of scale", where as more students are added the cost per student should decrease. And yet a Forbes editorial noted that the administrative and support staff at colleges between 1997 and 2007 increased at a rate double the rate of enrollment growth. It is not surprising though, since there is little incentive for colleges to control their own costs - after all, they are selling arguably the second largest purchase most people will ever make, funded almost entirely by guaranteed loans. What other industries have this type of built-in financial benefit?

Fortunately there are some cracks in the armor forming. Although the most recent Inc 500 list of fasting growing private companies included only four related to education, there are a number of start-up companies trying new ideas to disrupt the status quo:

• Open source textbooks from Flat World Knowledge
  
• Open source course content from the OpenCourseWare Consortium
  
• Degrees taught by volunteer faculty at the University of the People
  
• Peer learning from Peer2Peer University
  
• Competency-based degrees from Western Governors University
  
• Online education aggregators like Academic Earth.

These are all great initiatives, but there is a deep-seated cultural reason that the higher education industry has been able to stifle any potentially disruptive business models: the perceived value of where a person earns their degree is extremely high - arguably much higher than it should be. For real change to take hold in the industry, we need to think differently about how to measure and value education.


You can check out all of the 'Innovation Perspectives' articles from the different contributing authors on 'What product or sector is in desperate need of innovation?' by clicking the link in this sentence.

---

Rocco Tarasi was an accountant, investment banker, and CFO before becoming a technology entrepreneur. He writes about innovation at www.InnovationMinute.com with a focus on "everyday" innovations in business models, sales strategies, products and services.

Being Too Innovative Might Get You Fired

by Rocco Tarasi

A North Carolina principal was terminated for approving an "innovative" fundraising idea proposed to her by the parent advisory council. Their idea was to allow students to make a $20 donation to the school's new technology fund in return for 20 "points" that could be added to two of their exams (10 points per exam). For example, if a student scored a 68 on an exam they could add 10 points to make it a 78. After enough parents complained the school district stepped in, stopped the program, and terminated the principal (though they characterize it as "voluntary").

Maybe you like this particular idea, or maybe you don't. Either way, what I took away from this story is how difficult it can be for people to accept new ideas and thinking outside the box - especially when it comes to education, which seems to defy all natural laws of disruption and innovation. As different writes and readers have pointed out about this story, 20 points isn't going to make any significant difference in a person's overall grade. And does anyone really think this will encourage a student to slack in their studies simply because they can add 10 points to an exam?

But the quote from the article that shocked me the most was the following:


Teachers giving extra test credit to students who bring in classroom supplies is a longstanding practice at some schools.


The article didn't clarify that this particular school had this "extra credits for supplies" program, or which schools did. But there is ZERO difference between a $20 donation for extra credit and bringing in school supplies for extra credit, and if this is a "longstanding practice" then maybe it shouldn't cost someone their job.

The state's department of education officer said that "paying for grades teaches children the wrong lesson." I think that is a convenient excuse, and in fact you can choose to look at it the opposite way: if a student was given the choice of spending $20 of their own money on extra credits or on a new Transformers DVD movie, which would they choose? Perhaps that decision could itself be a valuable lesson.

The state also said that it would be unfair to students whose parents couldn't pay. This may be a more valid argument, but this could be easily solved by offering alternatives to the $20 donation, such as volunteer work that would require some effort or work from the students instead.

It's sad to see someone lose their job when they're taking the initiative to innovate, but mix an uber-sensitive society with an uber-political organization like a school board and the result shouldn't surprise anyone.

---

Rocco Tarasi was an accountant, investment banker, and CFO before becoming a technology entrepreneur. He writes about innovation at www.InnovationMinute.com with a focus on "everyday" innovations in business models, sales strategies, products and services.

Innovation Perspectives - Education Innovation Needed Now

This is the second of several 'Innovation Perspectives' articles we will publish this week from multiple authors to get different perspectives on 'What product or sector is in desperate need of innovation?'. Here is the next perspective in the series:

by Jeffrey Phillips

This question allows me to kill two or more birds with one stone. My recommended area most in need of innovation is the education system, for several reasons.

First, the primary and secondary education system in this country is based on learning models from the 19th century. While there has been significant change in almost all aspects of life, a 2nd grade teacher plucked from the late 19th century and returned to earth would be bewildered by most of what he or she encountered, except the pedagogy within the average classroom. Sure we don't emphasize rote memorization anymore, but short of that the curriculum and teaching methods haven't changed. One could argue that's because there's been so much success, but on any relative scale we can demonstrate that the educational system is failing miserably. So we have a rigid educational program steeped in tradition that is demonstrably failing. The educational system must innovate in order to be relevant.

Second, regardless of the tradition, we aren't teaching kids how to learn, or teaching them relevant skills, and are often channeling all of the kids in an educational system into a collegiate experience. This one size fits all educational outcome, where in some schools over 90% of students have college aspirations, neglects the fact that many won't complete college and will require other skills to generate income. Why do we continue to prepare the students for "knowledge worker" jobs when clearly there are many demands and opportunities, and proclivities for other skills? We need to resurrect the concept of apprenticeship and place more emphasis and value on learning skills beyond the classroom. We need better definitions about what kids need to know, and more importantly, we need to teach them how to learn and how to teach themselves and others.

Third, the disrupters are out in force. Since most educational systems are government monopolies rather than private enterprises, there's little innovation and little incentive for new entrants. As it is, many states have begun to experiment with charter schools, for-profit schools and many parents are turning to home schooling. Given the difficulty of starting alternative educational programs, and the rigidity of the existing educational bureaucracy, these experiments are too little and may be too late. We are at risk of losing a generation of students who have been taught inadequately and are unprepared for many of the roles and responsibilities they must take on.

The state governments and localities must act to allow much more experimentation, and universities must require more from people who want to teach, and must create new teaching and educational paradigms. If we aren't careful, businesses will go back to the beginning and create their own schools, to ensure a consistent flow of knowledgeable students with excellent experience. If you can't get the right raw materials, you create or purchase your own sources.

At one point it was argued that home schoolers were the nut cases who for behavior or religious reasons kept their kids at home. Since home schooled kids have proven very adept at getting entry to prestigious colleges, more and more people are pulling their kids out of primary and secondary programs and teaching them at home. This runs the risk of weakening the social fabric, if we don't have shared educational experiences, but these home schoolers are merely demonstrating that they believe they can innovate the educational model.

The educational system in the US is clearly failing - failing the students, failing the teachers and failing to create people who can join the workforce or create their own companies. In most factors the US ranks well down the list in terms of educational achievement. Only greater demand and political pressure will encourage more experimentation and more innovation. At this point we need disruptive innovation - a complete rethinking of the pedagogy, curriculum, technology and intent of education, followed by a restructing of how education is offered and consumed. If we can completely rework the health care system in the US in just over six months, with the right focus we can rework the educational system and create a more powerful, relevant educational experience for our children and grandchildren. We need to do this NOW.

Recently there was an argument about whether or not a school voucher program in Washington DC should continue as a pilot program. Only 1,700 kids were receiving vouchers to go to private schools, and by most accounts were doing very well. That program was threatened with termination, not because the funds were lacking or because the students were doing poorly, but because the program threatened the educational monopoly. For those of us who care about better education for everyone, in every program at every level, we need more innovation, faster than ever, in order to overcome the entrenched bureaucracy.


You can check out all of the 'Innovation Perspectives' articles from the different contributing authors on 'What product or sector is in desperate need of innovation?' by clicking the link in this sentence.

---

Jeffrey Phillips is a senior leader at OVO Innovation. OVO works with large distributed organizations to build innovation teams, processes and capabilities. Jeffrey is the author of "Make us more Innovative", and innovateonpurpose.blogspot.com.

Innovation, Invention and Entrepreneurs

by Jeffrey Phillips

After all I read on the blogs and on Twitter, and all the new innovation programs and initiatives in state and local governments, I feel the need to revisit the definitions of these key words. While innovation, invention and entrepreneurs are important and somewhat interconnected, they aren't synonyms and they have different needs, intents and purposes. Whether accidently or on purpose, we can't allow them to mean the same things.

First, the definitions:

An entrepreneur is a person who starts a new business. That's not necessarily innovative, but it can create new jobs and new wealth, so it is valuable. Sometimes, entrepreneurs create new businesses based on new ideas, either inventions or new innovations. However, a person running a McDonald's is also an entrepreneur, but not necessarily innovative.

An inventor is someone who creates a new to the world product or solution. Inventions become interesting when they create value for the inventor or consumers or the world at large. Inventors are often innovative, but innovative solutions don't have to be inventions. Many innovations are new business models, new services or new experiences that aren't necessarily "inventions".

An innovation is a new idea that is put into valuable or profitable action. An innovation can be created by an inventor who then licenses her invention to others to commercialize, or commercializes the concept herself as a small business person - in this case as an entrepreneur. An innovation can (and often is) created by a large organization to disrupt an existing market space or create an entirely new market (the iPod or Flip Video recorder are two good examples). Innovation can happen in any organization, of any size. Additionally, there's innovation in governments, in academic institutions, and in not-for-profits. We typically don't think of these organizations as entrepreneurial or as inventing new things, yet they can be innovative. Further, innovations can be new products, but can also be new service models, new business models and new customer experiences.

The reasons the distinctions are important are hopefully obvious. There are a number of state governments, as well as the federal government talking about innovation policy. Read the fine print and they are really talking about funding and sponsoring entrepreneurs and technology transfer from institutions and universities. This may have some aspect of innovation, but doesn't really consider organizations outside the start-up realm. A vast majority of disruptive and incremental innovations come from larger, commercial organizations, and these organizations can become more innovative as governments adjust tax policies, intellectual property rights and a number of other components of regulation and legislation. Yet most of the state and federal initiatives are really targeted at starting and funding new entrepreneurs and small businesses.

Interestingly, if you stop to consider the most "innovative" locations in the US (Boston, Research Triangle Park, Austin, Silicon Valley as a few) you'll note that they have all three things in common - government, education and technology are closely linked and vital to all of these cities. Innovation thrives in an interlinked, internetworked community. The same isn't necessarily true of inventions or entrepreneurs.

The overwhelming focus as well is on product innovation, yet we see consistently that business model innovation and customer experience innovation are much more compelling. After all, the icon of innovation, the iPod, is simply another MP-3 player unless iTunes is attached. It was the radical change in the business model and customer experience that made the iPod a true disrupter. Yet we don't find too much focus or government initiatives in these areas. And almost no policy or funding for the organizations that need innovation the most - governments and educational institutions and bureaucracies.

Another thing - having been a founder in a start-up, most entrepreneurs don't need or want a lot of help from an "innovation" perspective. They are betting the farm on their one great idea. For them, its all a matter of execution to bring that one idea to life, and then successfully scaling that idea. In contrast, larger organizations which have lost the passion and initiative of the entrepreneurs need a great deal of help and encouragement to innovate, since they have much to lose if a new product or service fails. In larger firms there is almost never a shortage of ideas, but a shortage of risk-taking, passion and resources to develop the new idea. Interesting that the problem the small firms have (scaling) is one the larger firms can offer, and the challenge the larger firms have (risk-taking, passion) is one the smaller firms can offer.

We need all three of these concepts work well to succeed. We need inventors to create new products and new processes, and we need entrepreneurs to disrupt existing markets and bring these new products and services to the market. We also need innovation from large existing firms, because without innovation they stagnate and die. When we talk about innovation, invention and entrepreneurs, and when we put policies in place to encourage certain types of activities or investments, we need to understand the implications and ramifications of those words and actions.


"While closely related, invention, innovation and entrepreneurs are not the same things, and should not be treated in the same fashion."

---

Jeffrey Phillips is a senior leader at OVO Innovation. OVO works with large distributed organizations to build innovation teams, processes and capabilities. Jeffrey is the author of "Make us more Innovative", and innovateonpurpose.blogspot.com.

China vs. USA in Innovation

by Jeffrey Phillips

There's an interesting new survey out from Newsweek about innovation. The survey compares the attitudes and expectations about the US and China in regard to innovation. In the survey there are some relatively unexpected differences and some safe assumptions and conclusions drawn.

On the safe side, it's not surprising that a majority of people in the US and China believe innovation will be even more important in the next few decades than now. Most people understand the increasing rate of change and the need for new products and services to meet both growing consumer demands and the increasing constraints placed on our consumption. We need both new products and services and new solutions to growing demands for more energy and a cleaner planet. The survey also shows that we in the US have less respect for our innovation capabilities than the Chinese population does. In the survey we consistently underestimate our capabilities, or the Chinese are overestimating us.

But what was really interesting to me was presented in the middle and toward the end of the survey. The first item that caught my attention was this question: What are the factors that you believe are causing the US to fall behind China from an innovation perspective?

The answers were: Schools lagging in math and science education (42%), American government not doing enough to support innovation (17%), American business not investing enough in innovation (16%), Don't know (14%) and American workers lacking skills to be technologically innovative (11%). According to this survey, then, we in the US are slipping behind because our (1) education system is failing to create innovative, creative workers or (2) our government isn't doing enough to support innovation or (3) businesses aren't investing in their workers or innovation.

What incentives did the government create or offer to Google to become the dominant and most innovative search engine? College dropouts created Napster, which was used as a model to disrupt the entire music distribution business. My concerns are that too often we sit passively by waiting for some permission or some program which will allow us to innovate, rather than simply taking the initiative. Waiting for the government to select the "best" technologies or waiting for the educational system to do a better job educating is not an answer. Yes, we need better education systems but we need them to turn out creative, insightful people, not just engineers and scientists. Innovation has so many possibilities and facets that turning out more scientists and engineers isn't necessarily going to make the US more innovative.

Let's reinforce this point using the next slide in the presentation. The title of the slide is American and Chinese parents disagree about which skills their children will need to drive innovation. The first two categories sum it up.

American families favor more science and technology education for their kids (American families chose this option 52% of the time, Chinese parents 9%) while Chinese parents chose creative approaches to problem solving (American families chose this option 18% of the time while Chinese parents chose this option 45% of the time). We in the US are far too fixated on science and technology as a driver for new product creation, when in fact too often the engineers and scientists in an organization can act as a block or barrier to innovation, since they are too focused on what's feasible, functional and practical. We, in the US and in China, need to educate our children and our workers on creative problem solving skills, to have them reach beyond the obvious to attain new ideas for new products, services and capabilities. One thing I think we can safely assume is that there will be an enormous number of scientists and engineers worldwide. No country or firm will corner the market on those skills. However, the number of people who are truly gifted at thinking creatively and solving difficult problems and challenges is far smaller. Let's corner the market on those skills and then find the people necessary to build and deliver the physical products and services.

We run the risk of expecting innovation to be driven by a government bureaucracy or waiting for specific dictates from government or businesses as to the "chosen" technologies or industries. What we need is more initiative from every sector. We need to improve education and educational opportunities for our children and demand more depth and breadth in their education, not just focusing on more math and science but also more creative and dynamic thinking to help them solve new and thornier problems. We need to increase the training for our existing workforce to shift their skills to new types of work and opportunities. But we can't wait for permission and we can't expect a behemoth of a federal government to make the right selections. What we can hope for is that it creates an environment where innovation and creativity can flourish.

---

Jeffrey Phillips is a senior leader at OVO Innovation. OVO works with large distributed organizations to build innovation teams, processes and capabilities. Jeffrey is the author of "Make us more Innovative", and innovateonpurpose.blogspot.com.

School is Out

by Kevin Roberts

It sometimes feels like I've run the full gamut of school-related experiences - from being kicked out of school at 17, to being invited back as a Governor. I frequently speak to students at universities around the world, but having an eternally curious granddaughter like Stella in my life has piqued my interest in the way primary schools approach the first few years of learning.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem we're doing our children justice in this regard. Despite being one of the richest countries on earth, America's education system is notoriously rife with difficulties. A recent in-depth report from Cambridge University on UK primary schools suggests a grim focus on state-determined curriculum and assessment is dampening childrens' appetites for learning. The researchers recommend a new approach where formal learning begins age 6 (rather than 5), and that younger children be left to learn through play. I've spoken here before about the importance (and fun!) of free-ranging play outdoors, and I think this principle remains the same in the classroom. Of course core frameworks are important - as long as they allow great teachers to inspire their young pupils to experiment, keep asking "why?", and start coming up with their own answers. Sure, sometimes they'll get it wrong. Sometimes they'll get their hands dirty. But if their curiosity is sparked, they'll develop a love and appreciation for learning as adventure that will last a lifetime.

I like the approach taken by President Obama in a recent speech to young American school children. Always big on hope and inspiration, the President pointed to where the best kind of education leads - discovery, innovation and creation. Not just retaining facts and ticking off boxes, but being able to take what you've learnt and use it to make something exciting and new that benefits everyone. His concluding questions put the future firmly in the hands of his young listeners:

"So today, I want to ask you, what's your contribution going to be? What
problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make?"

Fittingly, a bunch of open-ended questions best answered with imagination, not just textbooks.


Image source: http://defencedebates.wordpress.com/category/my-feedback-to-you/

---

Kevin Roberts is the CEO worldwide of The Lovemarks Company, Saatchi & Saatchi. For more information on Kevin, please go to www.saatchikevin.com. To see this blog at its original source, please go to www.krconnect.blogspot.com.

Why Education Needs Social Media

by Venessa Miemis

I read an article the other day on John Merrow's blog, titled 'Technology in Schools: Problems & Possibilities.' In it, he outlines three fears he has concerning the implementation of emerging media technologies into education:

1. The digital divide (gap between people with access to technology and those without)


2. Schools will resist innovation and become irrelevant


3. Schools will not use technologies in a strategic way

I spend a lot of time thinking about social technologies and the role they're playing in our lives now and into the future, and I feel that though John's fears are justified, they may prove to be unfounded as time progresses. Here's why:


Fear #1: The Digital Divide

I agree that access to technology may be an issue (for now), but the barrier is continuing to drop. Frame it in terms of Moore's Law or Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns, but either way, the rate at which technologies become more powerful and robust continues to increase, while the costs associated with producing them goes down. Based on this, the question of whether an individual from a lower income bracket can gain access to technology may become a moot point.

And I don't think that means that all of a sudden everyone is going to have a computer at home. But what it could mean is that the 'have-nots' will get on equal footing via technological leapfrogging. As upcoming mobile technologies continue to transform cellphones into portable, handheld computers, it's not hard to imagine that there will be a segment of the population that goes straight from no access to having smartphones that keep them fully connected. If you take a look at the latest Mobile Metrics Report by Admob, you'll see that the mobile web has been experiencing massive growth globally. (ReadWriteWeb summarized the report nicely here).

So, in my mind, we don't have to be in fear of a growing digital divide - if anything, we're going to see it exponentially shrink.


Fear #2: Schools Resist Innovation

Yes, I certainly agree with this. Schools, like governments, are institutions that are notoriously slow to adopt new practices and adapt to change. By resisting integration of some technologies and blocking access to others, schools are creating the potential for a huge shake-up in the trust and validity we put into them.

Social Media isn't a wild animal that needs to be caged and trained before it's allowed to be pet by the neighbors. Social media is a paradigm shift in how humans communicate. If schools stop teaching students communication skills, we're in trouble.

I don't know if this is a case of 'innovate of die,' but if educational institutions don't wake up, there will be a groundswell, and 'the people' will create solutions that are not dependent upon traditional learning structures.

I'd argue that in many ways this is already happening just in the act of participating in the social web. There's so much to be said on that idea alone, I'll save my expansion on it for an upcoming post.


Fear #3: Schools Embrace Technology Incorrectly

Like any project that is pursued with enthusiasm but without structure, trying to integrate social technologies into the classroom without a framework will fail. There are many, many individuals and organizations busy developing guidelines and best practices for how to teach 'new media literacies', so I will just provide a few examples as a reference. The MacArthur Foundation launched a $50 million digital media and learning initiative a few years ago, and has funded many great projects already. One that immediately comes to mind is New Media Literacies, a project pioneered by Henry Jenkins and the Comparative Media Studies program at MIT, which has a wealth of information to help educators effectively integrate new media into the classroom.

There will be a learning curve, especially since best practices are still being established, but fear cannot be the determining factor in whether technologies are implemented or not.

(BTW, for any 'social media expert' out there who wants to devote some time to learning how to apply their craft to the educational setting and do some consulting, there's a huge opportunity there for a lucrative business model.)


Final Thoughts

I think this whole conversation requires a reorientation of how 'social media' is approached. Defining it as something that can exist separately from education is simply misguided. Information is coming at us at a dizzying pace, and social technologies are tools that help us filter the flow. They allow us to share, discover, and grow. We can digest information together, collaboratively refine our thinking, and restate ideas in new ways to help make sense of it all.

In essence, social media is a mandatory 21st century literacy, a set of communication skills that MUST be learned if we want to prepare today's youth to be able to participate effectively in the global marketplace.

---

Venessa Miemis is a Media Studies graduate student at the New School in NYC, exploring what happens at the intersection of technology, culture, and communication. Connect with her at www.emergentbydesign.com and on Twitter @venessamiemis.

Building 21st Century Skills

It Doesn't Matter How Long They're in School as Long as They're Learning Skills for the Future

by Kathie Thomas

Yesterday I wrote about the pros and cons of three-year college versus four-year college. That got me thinking about what we need to do to really teach our children to succeed in the future.

As the mother of two elementary-school-aged girls (and stepmother of three young 20-somethings), I believe one of my chief responsibilities is giving them the best possible education I can, one that will teach and prepare them to excel in all stages of life. I believe they need to be taught, at a young age, how to learn and solve new problems, and that known facts can change and learning never stops.

Therefore, it doesn't really matter how long they're in college - for three years, like U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) argued in Newsweek, or four. What matters to me is whether students are learning what they need to be able to cope and adjust in an ever-changing world.

Even Alexander admitted that "the average amount of time students take to complete an undergraduate degree has stretched to six years and seven months." One possible reason for this is that brains are still developing, even into a person's 20's.

In fact, in a 2002 report by ACT for Youth Upstate Center of Excellence (ACT), Dr. Jay Giedd of National Institute of Mental Health said this means that students "may actually be able to control how their own brains are wired and sculpted." And, according to ACT, a collaboration of Cornell University, University of Rochester and the New York State Center for School Safety, "kids who 'exercise' their brains by learning to order their thoughts, understand abstract concepts and control their impulses are laying the neural foundations that will serve them for the rest of their lives."

So why worry about school length when their entire future is at stake?

According to "Learning for the 21st Century" in 2002, American writer and futurist Alvin Toffler once said "the illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn."

"Learning for the 21st Century" is the first report and mile guide by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21), a leading advocacy collaboration "focused on infusing 21st century skills into education," which brings together the "business community, education leaders and policymakers... to ensure every child's success as citizens and workers in the 21st century."

According to the P21 Framework Definitions Document from May 2009, students should master the four following interconnected knowledge, skills and expertise in order to "succeed in work and life in the 21st century:"

• Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes: English, reading, foreign language, math, economics, science, geography, history and government AND global awareness, civic literacy, health literacy, and financial, economic, business and entrepreneurial literacy.


• Learning and Innovation Skills: Creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, and communication and collaboration.


• Information, Media and Technology Skills: Information literacy, media literacy, and information, communications and technology literacy.


• Life and Career Skills: Flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and accountability, and leadership and responsibility.

To help school districts ensure that every child learns these skills, P21 provides them with self-assessments that allow them to plot where they are on the "spectrum of 21st century skills integration," chart a course for improved integration and better implement a 21st century skills model for learning.

Additionally, P21's Route 21 program provides educators with professional development and resources and curricula they can use to better teach 21st century skills to their students.

These are skills that are quickly becoming increasingly important today. They are essential not only to my children's futures, but to the future of the world. But many of them weren't even taught to 20-somethings when they were in school just a few a years ago - we didn't know we needed to teach them. We need to make sure that our children are being taught social skills, along with compassion for diversity and self-acceptance. They need to become deep learners who are passionate about new ideas and experiences. And they need to be competitive, to be able to stand up for themselves but also be humble.

It is my hope that these skills will help them find solutions that will make our world sustainable, not just from an environmental perspective, but from a social justice perspective. But I don't want the world to just survive, I want it to thrive. According to the Brookings Institute, education in any country has a powerful impact on safety, health and wealth. Education dramatically helps "reduce the risk of instability and lay(s) the groundwork for more stable, democratic political systems to emerge." If all children receive primary education, "as many as 700,000 cases of HIV" could be prevented each year. And, "every one percent increase in the level of women's education generates 0.3 percent in additional economic growth."

We already know that we live in a rapidly changing world. It is for that reason that our children need to learn to how to change with the world. As the original "Did You Know" video taught us, students today are being trained for jobs that don't even exist yet. And technology will have changed drastically by the time college freshmen become college seniors. It is crucial to our survival that we teach our children these skills.

Are your children learning these skills?

How are you helping them prepare for the 21st century?

---

Kathie Thomas is the Director of Innovation and a senior partner at Fleishman-Hillard. The global Innovation practice group Kathie leads offers proven tools and approaches for helping organizations and teams inject a new level of innovation and productivity into their strategic planning and program development.

The Importance of Consistency and Consensus

Interview - Steve McKee of "When Growth Stalls"


I had the opportunity to interview Steve McKee, the author of "When Growth Stalls" about the challenges companies face when they lose focus, lack consensus, or fail to maintain consistency with their innovation efforts. We also discuss a variety of other innovation topics including: barriers to innovation, education, and metrics.

Steve McKee is president of McKee Wallwork Cleveland, a full service marketing communications firm, is a BusinessWeek.com columnist and has been published or quoted in The New York Times, USA Today, Advertising Age, Adweek, Investor's Business Daily and The Los Angeles Times. He has appeared on CNBC, ESPN2, CNNfn, Bloomberg radio, and network television affiliates across America.

Here is the text from the interview:


1. When it comes to innovation, what is the biggest challenge that you see organizations facing?

The biggest challenge is consistency. People tend to look at innovation as an occasional thing - a lighting bolt of inspiration - rather than the result of a disciplined process. Sure, major innovations don't come along every day, but if you're not steadily on the prowl for them you'll never catch one. And not all innovations need to represent significant breakthroughs. Sometimes a small innovation in a rote process can produce tremendous benefits over time. Innovation efforts shouldn't have an on/off switch. They should be steady state.


2. Of the reasons that cause growth to stall, which is the most damaging to the organization?

They can all be damaging, but the most insidious is a lack of consensus. The reason is simple: until your management team is aligned, none of the other issues can be addressed. It's kind of like a marriage in which a couple is always fighting - about money, chores, in laws, whatever. Those are often not the real issues; the real issues deal with more fundamental things like trust and communication. You have to address the root issues first, and once you do all of the other problems can be addressed in turn.


3. Of the reasons that cause growth to stall, which is most difficult for the organization to recover from?

A loss of focus may be the toughest. If there's a commitment to finding consensus a company can usually get there, and a loss of nerve can be turned around on a dime if the circumstances are right. Inconsistency can only be overcome over time, but with a steady hand it can improve day by day. But when a company loses its focus it can face a great deal of difficulty in overcoming the consequences.

I read about a resort hotel general manager who said, "It takes two minutes to cut your rates and two years to get them back." He's right (and it might take a lot more than two years). In order to overcome a loss of focus a company may have to divest a division, trim staff, reorient its brands, or do a host of other things. It can be expensive, painful and time-consuming.


4. How do you help your organization see that it is time to switch from defense to offense?

Since you used a sports analogy, I'll continue it - you never want to play defense. That doesn't mean you don't have to sometimes, but the cliche is true: the best defense is a good offense. In business there's no reason why you can't be playing offense most of the time. When you drop the ball, recognize it and do everything you can to pick it up again right away.


5. What are some good examples of companies that you feel had their growth stall and then got it restarted?

I have to give Walmart its props. I took the company to task in When Growth Stalls for losing its focus when a few years ago it announced it was going to try to broaden its customer base. Of course, many retail analysts thought it was brilliant. I knew it was a mistake, and I'm happy to say I said so at the time in my BusinessWeek.com column.

Circumstances bore that out, and it didn't take long for Walmart to regain its focus on "people who live paycheck to paycheck." While the recession has been good to Walmart, the company isn't sitting on its hands. It's pouring billions of dollars into additional advertising, store remodels, IT infrastructure enhancements, etc. Walmart will benefit from its renewed focus for a long time to come.


6. What are some of the biggest barriers to innovation that you've seen in organizations?

One barrier is the need in modern business to measure things. Sometimes we get so preoccupied with ROI that we think if you can't measure something it's of no value. I would counter that by asking, "how much do you love your wife?" Love is impossible to quantify, but that doesn't mean it's not there - and in great supply. Anyone can paint by "the numbers," but the best leaders have wisdom and good judgment that goes beyond what can be reduced to a spreadsheet. As someone once said, "no one ever asked for a microwave oven." Or an iPod, for that matter.

Innovation efforts are not unlike venture capital investments (when you think about it, that's exactly what they are) - you're going to have a lot of flops between hits, but you can't know ahead of time when you're going to come up dry and when you're going to find a gusher. The key, as I said above, is consistency. You either believe in innovation (and put your money and time where your mouth is) or you don't.


7. What skills do you believe that managers need to acquire to succeed in an innovation-led organization?

Curiosity, of course. A desire to pioneer and break new ground. Patience. Willingness to fail. And an understanding that activity and productivity are not the same thing. I tell my staff "you gotta look up before you look down." In other words, sometimes you need to gaze at the clouds before you can reduce something to paper or proposal. Take time to think, instead of always "doing", and you'll find that your "doing" is much more productive.


8. If you were to change one thing about our educational system to better prepare students to contribute in the innovation workforce of tomorrow, what would it be?

One word: privatize. What better way to demonstrate the power and value of innovation than by having students experience its benefits in their own educational environment? We're trying to teach kids about the realities of competing in a global economy and the need for innovation, yet we're doing it in a plodding, bureaucratic, unimaginative and restrictive system. Doesn't make sense, and it's hurting the kids.


My book review of "When Growth Stalls" can be found here.

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Innovation Tournaments Interview

Interview - Christian Terwiesch of "Innovation Tournaments"

I had the opportunity to interview Christian Terwiesch, one of the co-authors of "Innovation Tournaments" about how to create and select exceptional opportunities. We also discuss a variety of other innovation topics including: barriers to innovation, education, and metrics.

Professor Terwiesch teaches MBA and executive classes in the areas of operations management and product development at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He also holds a visiting appointment at INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France.

Here is the text from the interview:

1. When it comes to innovation, what is the biggest challenge that you see organizations facing?

Innovation is seen as an art and organizations believe that the best way to nurture innovation is to simply create the right organizational culture and environment for people to become creative. Open floor spaces, many meeting rooms, x-functional collaboration, etc. But it is not enough to rely on culture and the passion of individuals. You need to put processes in place and you have to equip people with the right tools of innovation. Innovation is NOT an art, I can teach you the basics of innovation in a day. I found innovation tournaments to be one great tool for people and organizations to move to a more process driven approach to innovation.


2. From your experience, what are some of the keys to increasing variability to help get the best ideas?

Variability is key in innovation and in innovation tournaments. The more diverse the set of ideas, the better are your winning ideas. But I find that many companies have a hard time coming up with high variability ideas. Those in charge of innovation always turn to the same people for ideas, they listen obediently to their bosses and to their customers. That kills variability. I'll give you another example - In some of our most recent research, we look at how brainstorming meetings function. Many of us are taught to build on other people's ideas in such brainstorming meetings. But our research shows that while this might make us feel happy and collaborative, the resulting ideas are actually less innovative. At least at the ideation step, you have to just break a lot of norms and existing molds.


3. What metrics do you usually see organizations using to measure innovation success?

Organizations need to measure innovation - what you don't measure, you do not manage. Talking to companies, I often see them struggle with measuring innovation - often I get asked "what measures should we track?". Organizations often don't know what they should measure. And so they measure what is easy to measure. Number of patents, percentage of revenues generated from new products, R&D spending, etc. You should not measure just for the sake of measurement. Before you measure, you first need a game plan, a strategy.

Let me give you an example. For managers, measures are what the dashboard is for a driver. They give you information about the way the process operates. Now look at the dashboard in your car. You are driving 60mph, your engine spins at 3000rpm and you currently get 20 miles per gallon. So what? These measures are meaningless unless you have some targets in mind. Is your goal to quickly drive from A to B? Then focus on speed and ignore the fuel efficiency. If you care about the environment, get into a higher gear (I like to drive with a manual transmission...) so your rpm's come down at the same speed and maybe you want to slow down to 50mph. Every performance measurement system needs to be custom built to fit your business needs. You cannot just ask a consultant for the "right measures".


4. If you were to change one thing about our educational system to better prepare students to contribute in the innovation workforce of tomorrow, what would it be?

I like to say "Fail quick, fail cheap, fail often". Innovation is all about failures. In an innovation tournament, you have 100s of 'losing' ideas for every winner. Our educational systems do not provide candid feedback to students. Every little project is praised as being great and every student is told that they did a 'good job'. So when these students graduate, they think that everything they touch is great. But they fail to understand that every great innovator loses far more often than they win. Innovation is not about avoiding failures, it is about recognizing a failure early and then learning from it.


My book review of "Innovation Tournaments" can be found here.

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Teach Your Children to Innovate

by Drew Boyd

Parents teach their children many things: morals, etiquette, religion, sports, cleanliness, walking, cooking, riding a bicycle, reading, writing, math, discipline, safety, driving a car...the list goes on and on. What if you could give your child the life-long ability to innovate? What a gift indeed. This issue surfaced after a string of emails with one of our blog readers who wants her child to learn innovation (thanks, Trish!). Can children learn a corporate innovation method at such an early age?

I've taught children how to innovate, and it is one of the most rewarding feelings you can have. I taught 6th, 7th, and 8th graders the method called Systematic Inventive Thinking. I was surprised and a bit unnerved how well they did. After teaching the five templates of innovation (over a five weekly sessions), each child completed a "final exam" by innovating a new-to-the-world product using one of the templates in just 30 minutes! I was amazed. The PowerPoint slides I used for this training are in the READING section of the blog if you wish to download them.

Here are some pointers for teaching your children to innovate:


1. Equate innovation to other skills-based activities

• Innovating takes skill just like sports or dancing. Don't let your children think innovation is some special, innate talent that only certain people have. This creates an artificial barrier, one that I see too often in the corporate environment, and it prevents people from trying to be innovative. Innovating is a skill, and it can be learned by anyone, even those who are not creative in the traditional sense.

2. De-emphasize patents

• For some reason, kids are fascinated with patents. They tend to see patents as the ultimate reward of innovation. Patents do not equate to successful innovation; rather, they equate to getting legal status regarding an invention. If a child invents something that has already been invented, this is a success. In fact, it is a huge success because it shows an ability to create novel ideas that have a track record of success. Be sure to reward your child if they invent something that exists. Send the message: if you can invent something that is already shown to be successful, you can definitely be the first to invent something new and useful.

3. Apply innovation across a wide variety of situations

• It is not just for inventing new products. Teach you children to apply innovation methods to things like writing a poem, doing school work, or getting dressed in the morning. Have them invent a new way to clean their room or play with a toy. Help them equate innovation with creating novelty in the everyday things. Make innovation a routine way to tackle new situations.

4. Distinguish between innovation skills and problem solving skills

• Both are useful, but are often confused as the same. They are related, but different. Help them see problem solving as what to use when the problem is very well defined and must be solved. Help them see innovating as the set of tools to use when new approaches are needed for an existing task. Example: Innovate a new way to clean their room, but problem-solve when they want to avoid having to do it.

5. Teach "ambidextrous" innovation

• Help them understand the two directions of innovation: Problem-to-Solution and Solution-to-Problem. Example: if the kitchen toaster burns the bread every morning, and they see a novel way to fix it, that is Problem-to-Solution. Other the other hand, if they imagine the toaster is like a TV that is "on demand," then make the connection that this would help mom get toast ready precisely when everything else is ready, that is Solution-to-Problem innovation.

6. Set an example

• Parents struggle teaching children anything unless the parents demonstrate those skills themselves. Whether it is table manners, proper grammar, or how to treat other people, parents must "walk the talk." Innovation is no different. Let children see how you and others, especially other children, use innovation methods to do cool things, fun things, important things.

(Pictured are two future innovators, Emerson and Margo, from Cincinnati, Ohio)

---

Drew Boyd is Director of Marketing Mastery for Johnson & Johnson (Ethicon Endo-Surgery division). He is also Visiting Assistant Professor of Marketing and Innovation at the University of Cincinnati and Executive Director of the MS-Marketing program. Follow him at www.innovationinpractice.com and at http://twitter.com/drewboyd

Do you know your 3 F's of Innovation?

Interview - James Todhunter - Invention Machine

I had the opportunity to interview James Todhunter, Chief Technology Officer at Invention Machine about engaging employees in a successful open innovation effort. Invention Machine is a software company that drives sustainable innovation across global organizations. In his blog Innovating to Win, Todhunter regularly offers insights and observations on building high-performance teams that can drive sustainable innovation across organizations.


Here is the text from the interview:

1. When it comes to open innovation, what is the biggest challenge that you see organizations facing?

In general, I don't see organizations struggling to find an entry point into open innovation. Rather, the struggle comes in understanding the critical success factors that must be met, and how to face these challenges. While we are all aware of certain high profile companies that have achieved interesting results through open innovation, I hear many more organizations complain that they are not deriving value from their efforts. After an initial flurry of activity, the programs stall. The quality of input from the innovation communities is low and often characterized as shallow and immature. The reliability of value network partners is sometimes weak, and there is a great gulf between indentifying an interesting idea and delivering value in the form of a new product or market innovation. Overcoming the issues of authority, alignment, and actualization spells the difference between open innovation as just a big suggestion box versus being a source of value. This will be the focus of my session at the Open Innovation Summit.


2. From your experience, what are some of the keys to successfully engaging employees in an open innovation effort?

To engage employees in the open innovation initiative, it is critical to understand the roles of the many constituencies of innovation and communicate those roles clearly to internal communities. Every organization must take the time to look at the various communities, both internal and external, that contribute value to the corporate innovation programs. Internal communities such as engineering, marketing, production and all have distinct roles and functions to fulfill in the value creation and delivery process. The external communities include supply partners, production partners, logistical partners, and customers. When the roles and interaction points of these communities are understood, the open innovation system can be presented as a powerful tool to help employees be more successful and not be viewed as a source of noise or, in the extreme, a threat.


3. Do organizations need a centralized innovation group? What authority do they need?

Well, this is one of those questions must be answered with both a yes and a no. First, let's consider the no aspect of this. For a company to truly establish a sustainable and high performance innovation culture, it must first understand that innovation is everyone's job. That doesn't mean that everyone should go off and try to create the next great thing. Rather, it is a realization that the only constant in any business is change. Even as we establish best practices for operational efficiency, we need to consider how to tear them down and redefine best practices and the methods of execution in order to operationalize innovation as a force of change to help us achieve the continuous improvement we must always seek. This constant and continuous every day innovation is just one end of the innovation continuum. For others in the organization, innovation takes on progressively higher orders of meaning as our individual roles define the classes of innovation activities that we each must pursue. With this in mind, organizations should consider how they steward the development of innovation skills within the company and help individual worker grow their own innovation capabilities. Broad engagement in the innovation culture also has the benefit of preempting the NIH attitude that can prevent the diffusion of innovation when new concepts are foisted upon the workforce by what can be viewed as an ivory tower body.

However, even in such a ubiquitous innovation environment, it becomes clear that an organizing force is needed to create alignment and get everyone pulling the wagon in the same direction. This is the yes part of the answer. Companies that believe such systems will self organize as grass roots initiatives are fooling themselves. There are critical factors that are simply out of the scope of the rank file community and thus limit the traction achievable at the grass roots level. Providing a corporate wide innovation skills development program, building the infrastructure for knowledge enablement of innovation workers, ensuring the alignment of all innovation activity with corporate strategy, and making the trade-offs of resource allocations are just a few examples of activities that require some higher-level visibility and attention in the organization. It is for this reason that truly successful innovation cultures begin with a mandate from the top which is not merely expressed in words, but experienced by all through the consistent and constant reinforcement of action.

It is important to note that there is a lot of latitude on how such a central capability can be expressed in a company. It doesn't need to be an explicit organizational unit; it may be a managed matrix function. It is also not necessary that the central capability is the body doing the innovation per se, in many cases the central function is an enabler - a catalyst with the organization - of innovation.


4. What are some of the secrets to achieving organizational alignment when it comes to innovation?

The single greatest tool to achieve organizational alignment is communication. Communication must flow in all directions: top-down, bottom-up, and side-to-side. The communication must be rich and open. Management must communicate to employees the strategy, objectives, and relevance of each employee's job to the strategy. I remember walking around the production facility of a global semiconductor manufacturer. As I talked with different workers, the clarity and consistency of understanding of the strategic goal and each person's ability to impact that goal was remarkable. It is no wonder that this company is the leader in their space.

Employees must also feed information up the ladder. None of us are immune from the trap of our own personal experience. Management needs the input of the company's communities to have a complete picture on which to base its strategic assessments and properly understand the trade-off dynamics as they make both tactical and strategic decisions that will have far reaching affects on the company.

And of course, side-to-side communication and collaboration are fundamentally important for a complete alignment in the company's innovation programs.


5. What are some of the keys to validating ideas in order to pick the ideas to fund?

A great place to start is to examine the three Fs: fit, feasibility, and finance.

By looking at fit, you should asking questions about how well the subject concept meets the needs. Have you identified and qualified the customer pain you are going to address through your innovation? How differentiated is your concept relative to other potential solutions (including non-consumption)? What are the deficits of your approach? What are the change dynamics and hurdles to innovation diffusion that you may encounter and how does your concept address these? These and similar questions are all about assessing the scope and nature of your future value proposition.

When considering feasibility, the questions are now oriented towards understanding the implementability and market timing aspects of innovation. What technical challenges must be overcome to realize you vision? Do you have potential solution paths identified? What about freedom to operate? Do you have an open field, or are there intellectual property hurdles to be cleared? What is the time line to deliver on your concept and is that compatible with the market?

And of course, business is all about finance. What is the size of the opportunity? What is the path to monetization? Is this use of resources aligned with your objectives? Is this a strategic move or a distraction? What is the opportunity cost of pursuing this path as compared to others? How will you achieve a positive contribution to margin in the shortest time? How does this innovation contribute to the long range objectives for corporate valuation?


6. What are some ways that organizations can accelerate their innovation efforts?

Of course the specific needs of every organization are different. But in general, I would advise companies to walk the walk and not merely pay lip service to innovation. This means making the corporate commitment to innovation palpable at every level. Executive management must be visibly and meaningfully engaged in the innovation process. They must also show their commitment through investing in people, giving them the time, latitude, and support they need to successfully meet the corporate innovation goals. Workers must be provided with access to innovation skills training. Of course, the tools and infrastructure for innovation are essential. This is why Invention Machine's global clients invest in the Goldfire innovation platform. All of this must be in service of a comprehensive and connected high-performance innovation system that balances every day and strategic innovation, and ties all efforts back to the corporate objectives.


7. What skills do you believe that managers need to acquire to succeed in an innovation-led organization?

It is essential for managers to be able to properly value innovation and assess innovation strategies. Related to this, managers must be able to articulate the value of innovation to the various internal constituencies they touch. Finally, managing the dynamics of change within the organization is a key skill in maintaining a healthy innovation environment.


8. If you were to change one thing about our educational system to better prepare students to contribute in the innovation workforce of tomorrow, what would it be?

A shift towards teaching critical thinking and learning skills is sorely needed. These are the building blocks of success in a future that will be defined by rapidly changing dynamics on a global scale. We aren't doing an adequate job of equipping the next generation of knowledge and innovation workers with these essential skills.


Tell Me More

If you'd like to hear more of what James Todhunter has to say about the challenges of open innovation and hear strategies for overcoming them, he will be leading a panel at the Open Innovation Summit, taking place December 2-4, 2009 in Orlando, Florida along with several other open innovation leaders, authors, and consultants. James Todhunter's talk is currently titled:

"Hands-On Strategies For Overcoming the Key Challenges Of Open Innovation"

September 18, 2009 is the last day for the $400 early bird discount.

Blogging Innovation readers can save an extra $300 by registering using the discount code - NXB458. More than enough to add Workshop B to your innovation experience.

See you there!

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.