The Innovators Studio with Phil McKinney

In today's world, buzzwords are everywhere. Within the realm of innovation, the misuse of these innovation buzzwords runs rampant. Often, these words and phrases push people away from innovation as they perceive it to be too complex.

Often used to impress something upon someone, buzzwords can be technical or specific to a particular industry. Common buzzword examples are synergy, clickbait, and growth hacking. Synergy means something that works together. Clickbait refers to content developers such as Youtubers who exaggerate what their videos are about. Growth hacking means finding different ways to grow a business. Initially meant to simplify things, more often than not, buzzwords complicate them.

Within the world of innovation, there are many existing buzzwords that people dislike. The most common one I hear is design-thinking, which has been around for a while. Originally, this term referred to devising the user's needs at the beginning of a project and carrying that approach to the end. Unfortunately, this buzzword has been misused and turned into something different.

Let's look at an innovation buzzword I often use, ideation. At The Innovators Network, we teach workshops on the ideation process. Ideation is the process of generating more and better ideas. At the end of it all, ideation is a made-up word that means relatively the same thing that brainstorming does.

Another innovation buzzword is a disruptor— someone or something that shakes things up when entering an established industry. This shakeup is through the usage of different techniques and approaches. An excellent example of a disruptor is when Uber entered and changed the ride-hailing services industry.

Another buzzword that I use often is innovator. An innovator is simply one who presents a new product, service, or a new transformative technique. The issue that arises with this term is that so many people call themselves innovators when they don't offer anything innovative or perform innovation. Because of its rampant misuse, it has become harder to identify the real innovators from the fake ones.

Next up is the term system-thinking. Top consulting firms often use this buzzword. Companies use the term in attempts to differentiate the services they offer from their competitors. System thinking means looking at things as systems rather than established processes. At its core, this term, like other buzzwords, is an overcomplication of something simple.

Pain points is another buzzword that refers to things that drive customers crazy. Another commonly used innovation buzzword is social innovation. This one is self-explanatory. It means using innovation to solve social problems.

When it comes to innovation, buzzwords create a barrier between those inside and outside the innovation space. While buzzwords aren't inherently wrong, their misuses often lead to confusion and misguidance. I hope that misuse of these buzzwords will start to diminish, creating more apparent openings for others to participate in genuine innovation efforts.

To know more about the misuse of innovation buzzwords, listen to this week's show: Misused Innovation Buzzwords.

[irp posts="4392" name="Subscribe to Podcast"]

When studying different companies and their cultures, you will notice different team structures. The question of which structure is the best may eventually cross your mind. Some companies have large teams, while others operate with small, close-knit groups. I believe there is an optimal innovation team size that leads to killer ideas when it comes to innovation.

The question of the day is this: Does team size genuinely have an impact? I reviewed a collaboration study done a while ago by the Kellogg School of Management and Northwestern University. The premise: large teams are problem solvers, and small teams are problem generators. The study showed that as the teams grew from one member to fifty members, their creativity decreased. The large teams focused on developing already known ideas, and the small teams focused on ideating new ideas.

As teams grew in size, different things impacted them. Firstly, team members suffered relational losses. They felt disconnected from other team members. Secondly, there was a tendency for the individual to contribute less on a large team than they would in a smaller one. Thirdly, when it came to large teams, they often sought out a leader to guide them. The smaller teams did not have a main leader but functioned off trusting each other and focusing on a common mission or vision.

A great way to combat innovation team size issues is through Multi-Team Systems (MTS). This process breaks down larger teams into smaller ones and establishes a structure. Utilizing MTS will lead to better team efficiency, which will lead to better ideas.

Allow me to share my experience with team sizes. I started my career at Deltek, which functioned with large teams. I later joined Thumbscan, which had medium-sized teams that were not the most efficient. When I left this team to build my product, I realized how hard it was to develop something without a team. This taught me the importance of being part of a team and the importance of that team's size.

One outside example that shows the importance of team size comes from Apple in the 1980s. The company was utilizing large teams, coming out with the Apple 1, 2, and 3. These efforts had turned out unsuccessful. As a result, Steve Jobs picked a small exclusive team to work on MacIntosh. He did this to avoid any outside influence from the company. This move led to enormous success for Apple. The bottom line, when teams are separated and given a specific mission to focus on, they reach a point of efficiency, leading them to achieve their goal.

From my experience with teams, I have concluded that the optimal innovation team size is 6-8 people. Any more than that, and the team members might lose focus and feel disconnected. In my opinion, nobody should have more than twelve people that directly report to them. Not only is the team size important, but the makeup of the team as well. A team needs visionaries, leaders, energizers, designers, etc. A team with the right combination of skillets will cultivate innovation success.

AI has become very popular in the world today. With its transition from a dream to reality, one must wonder what future outcomes will come of it. Is human creativity at the core of AI? Some may wonder whether AI can possess the same creative abilities.

Learning and experiences lead to innovation and creation. With every new creation comes inspiration from something else. When it comes to AI, there is a difference between being inspired and being invented. The keys here are input and experience.

AI is composed of training data that recognizes patterns and finds the best solutions. Training data is vital to the makeup of AI. This makeup is typically called machine learning. In the past, the common thought was that humans had a unique advantage over this area. Some instances have said otherwise.

Is Artificial Intelligence growing smarter than humans? That depends on your definition of smarter. Do you define smart by critical thinking skills or IQ? In the case of chess, the key is to recognize patterns and to be able to look at the number of steps ahead. These are two skills that computers have become quite good at through the utilization of machine learning. The question then becomes whether those skills are what we define as smart.

Let's look at an example of AI from the work of the Associated Press, which generates millions of news stories for several different industries. It utilizes the Wordsmith tool to perform deep learning. As a result, AP outpaces the news outputs of all the major media companies out there combined.

Trained on successful articles that people have written, Wordsmith has a downside. The issue with AP's process is that there is no specific writing style, lacking human creativity. Instead, the platform produces media based on things like news releases by newscasters or online outlets. As a result, Associated Press's Wordsmith tool couldn't write the script for my show or other similar shows.

In my spare time, I like to write instrumental music. Magenta Studios has an AI plugin that I like experimenting with. This tool offers a simple way to utilize AI to develop something. The use of AI tools like AP's Wordsmith or Magenta's plugin conjures up some questions. People might wonder who should get the credit for the articles published or music created.

You may still wonder if AI applications can replace human creativity. You may also wonder if AI can create new ideas leading to killer innovations. I don't believe AI can replace the unique creativity of humans.

AI utilization is most successful as a tool to enhance ideas. It can be used as an aid to get past the mental block encountered while brainstorming ideas. Human creativity is also evolving as AI grows. AI should not be feared, rather appreciated and experimented with. I believe AI will play a significant and positive role in our future.

Let's be honest with ourselves. Being creative is hard. Suppose a crisis within your organization happens, and you need to come up with ideas on demand. How do you respond? While this situation sounds scary, there are steps you can take to respond successfully.

I use three steps to brainstorm ideas on demand. The first step is to create a problem statement. Define the problem before you start collecting solutions. Focus on answering the following: who is being impacted by the problem, what is the problem, and why is it important to solve.

I lead a project solving a problem involving broadband for those living in rural areas. In this situation, those impacted were the people in rural areas. The problem was the lack of access to broadband for those living in low population areas. The impact was the inability to work at home, access various information, and engage in entertainment.

Step two is to ideate through brainstorming ideas. Since this is an on-demand situation, I focus on two dimensions, the first being time. Does your innovation save people time or make them more efficient? The second dimension is money. Can your innovation help save money, make more money, or make people efficient with money?

Step number three is to share your raw ideas with others who can join you. Please invite others to build upon your ideas, or plus it. Next, you share the problem statement, describe the two dimensions, and present your ideas. Then, rank your ideas and select the best ideas to dig into.

By the end of ninety minutes to two hours, you will come up with a handful of good ideas to move forward with. Remember, this is just a starting point. You will not have fully developed ideas, but you will have enough to get started. The first time you try this, you may be nervous and stressed. Don't your emotions filter your ideas because you are trying to create ideas on demand. The crazier, the better.

In life, it is essential to be content when it comes to certain things. However, when dealing with innovation, that is far from the case. When an innovator decides they are satisfied with their product or idea, they will be in for an unpleasant surprise. This contentment can be the ultimate enemy of innovation.

The state of contentment is a state of peace, satisfaction, and acceptance of a situation, outcome, or circumstance. While this sounds great, issues arise when one becomes so content they give up. When people choose contentment, they often avoid any conflicts or challenges. Innovation is all about finding ways to improve things. When an innovator is content with where they are, they develop a false feeling that change is slowing down. This false sense causes the innovator to miss warning signs of an incoming change.

Contentment will lead you to avoid risk and change. The contentment then acts as an innovation antibody. Now you can see how contentment is the enemy of innovation. True innovators are never content with where their products or ideas are. Instead, they are constantly working to improve them.

During my life, there have been a few times where I fell into a state of contentment. I allowed myself to check out and remain on autopilot. I was satisfied with my successes, but my state of contentment was short-lived. These phases were because of some disruptive shocks that occurred in the world around me at these times. When these changes happened, they shook me up, and my contentment rapidly disintegrated. It was then that I learned how contentment is the enemy of innovation.

Here's what you can do to avoid the enemy of innovation. Firstly, challenge yourself to do things that make you uncomfortable. Try a new hobby, learn a new instrument, play a new sport, etc. This challenge will give you a new perspective and keep you from being stagnant. Secondly, you can change up the way you do things. This change can be simple, like switching up your morning routine or driving a different way to work. Thirdly, you can try some creative muscle exercises.

Start with challenging yourself to come up with five problems that need solving. These can be personal things, work or school-related, things for a non-profit, etc. There will never be a shortage of issues that need solving. Doing these things will keep you creative and alert, avoiding the enemy of innovation known as contentment.

A vital function of an innovation leader is to motivate, support, and point their team to good habits. Doing this should be a daily activity. Modeling leadership habits and exhibiting leadership skills inspires employees to become leaders. With this inspiration, employees will become more efficient and innovative. This effect can be created through a list of questions to ask your employees.

The first question on my list is, "What went well last time we met?" Once you ask this question, it is important to be a good listener. Next, offer them your appreciation for their work, and offer your support. Focus on reinforcing the idea that innovation is about the team. The second question on the list is, "What went wrong and what was the lesson you took from it?" When dealing with innovation, we can't always be in complete control of the situation. Failures are bound to happen. As an innovation leader, you must encourage your employees to share their failures and learnings. Having a culture that embraces experimentation leads to greater innovations. Additionally, the organization can learn from that failure and avoid it altogether in the future. Number three on my list of questions to ask your employees is, "What did you find that could be improved, and what did you do to improve it?" This question is vital because it permits employees to fix things. In doing so, the employees learn some important lessons. Firstly, they learn that everyone in the organization is in it together. Secondly, they learn not to throw their problems on someone else, but to take initiative.

The fourth question is, "how can I create a motivating environment?" In my organization, we give out gift cards to recognize employees' good efforts and innovation habits. To create a motivating atmosphere, you need to actively listen and be approachable. Additionally, you need to recognize when someone does something well by publicly acknowledging it. This shows others what habits and actions to strive for in their team and organization. The fifth question I ask is, "What roadblocks are you facing and what can I do to clear them?" As a leader, your job is to sift out things that hinder productivity. Roadblocks can be large or small issues. Leaders should remove barriers so that their teams can stay focused on what's important.

Lastly, I ask my employees if there is anything else they want to talk about. This open-ended question allows employees to share other things on their minds. One of my organization's core values is "candor with respect." This gives employees the confidence to be transparent and frees them from concern about negative reactions. Protect confidentiality so employees feel they can open up. I've had employees present challenges in their personal lives. In some cases, I've been able to help. The results have improved employee morale and generated positive change for the organization.

Let's say your organization tasks your team to generate a new product or service idea. You gather your team together and get ready to brainstorm, thinking you can't go wrong. Contrary to common thought, when brainstorming problem statements, things can go wrong. Often, teams will jump into brainstorming sessions, forgetting a vital step of the process. This step is known as the area of focus.

When it comes to assembling your team to brainstorm problem statements, developing the area of focus is beyond critical. As a team leader, it is essential to explain a few key things to your team. Firstly, you need to explain who has the problem. Secondly, it is crucial to lay out what the problem is. Lastly, you explain why the problem is essential to solve.

When brainstorming problem statements, a set timeframe will help a team put all their energy and attention into creating that area of focus. This time is vital because a well-defined focus from a solid problem statement will generate more and better ideas. A well-thought-out problem statement either solves a problem, removes a barrier, or improves an experience. Don't forget that problem statements need to be concise without implying or stating a solution.

It is also crucial that they are specific enough to the point where they are solvable by your organization within that timeframe. This process is not easy. As a result, I spend four to eight hours crafting, testing, and validating a problem statement.

There are a few key steps needed when successfully brainstorming problem statements. Firstly, you need to get together and brainstorm the problem. This step includes gathering a list of problems and challenges, any organizational friction or barriers, and unmet needs within the organization. The second step is to have your team answer the "what, who, and why." Thirdly, you need to take the gathered data and plug it into one of the templates to generate the problem statement.

Next, repeat the "who, what, and why," drafting multiple versions of the problem statement. Lastly, test it with the "who," or your organization's target segment. Once you have a version of the problem statement you think works, test it with others. The test is best done by writing it out and making it concise. Like I always say, never use yourself as a proxy. Next, ask your organization some questions to validate the problem and problem statement. Once validated, you are ready to present your problem statement to your team so they can begin brainstorming.

Many people spend years of their lives searching for the secrets of success. Most people believe success comes from doing what successful people do. 1986, "In Search of Excellence" came out, which sought to identify shared practices of 10 successful companies and publish them. This book was the first one in its genre. Did these companies become successful out of luck?

Let's try this strategy by taking fifty firms featured in three best sellers in this genre – In Search of Excellence, Good to Great, and Built to Last. Of the firms covered by these books, sixteen failed within five years, twenty-three underperformed the S&P 500, five became exceptional, and the remaining six became average. Only 10% of these "role model" companies became successful.

Now let's look at the area of music. If you look at an artist that had a top 20 song, should you sign that artist? Your gut would probably say yes. A study looked at 8,300 artist's songs from 1980-2008. It concluded that rather than signing the artist in the top twenty of 100 songs, you would have better market success picking the artist ranked between 22-30.

In many cases, songs that get top spots are "one-hit wonders." The artists that tended to have more career success were the second-best to start with. Smart agents sign artists in the mid-twenty to thirties range because they got there by skill and not luck.

People often confuse luck with taking a risk. By luck, I mean going from good to great out of nowhere. The difference between an okay innovation and a breakthrough is all about the right timing. Some levels of success can be attributed to the innovator, but luck often plays a big part.

When I think of luck, I think of it in the construct of a 2x2 matrix. The horizontal axis is the level of luck, the left side being zero (no luck), and the right side being 100 (every perfect condition). The vertical axis is your innovation capability, the lower part is zero (no innovation capability), and the top is 100 (innovation perfection).

In the lower left-hand corner, with no luck and no innovation capability, you have no chance. If you don't innovate and leverage any form of luck, competition will eat you up. In the upper left, where you have great innovation but no luck, you might have some mediocre success, break even, or get acquired by someone. With unbelievable luck but no innovation capabilities in the lower right-hand corner, you have "blind luck." Many people think they can consistently achieve success through luck, but it is not a strategy. In the upper right-hand quadrant, you have unbelievable innovation capabilities, and luck comes along.

In some cases, you can position yourself to achieve breakthrough success. It's important to know when to pause an idea. When luck raises its head, you can take advantage of it and create that innovation success. Don't think that you can do whatever someone like Elon Musk did and achieve the same level of success. It would be best if you recognized that you aren't in complete control. Don't try to control luck, but use your innovation capabilities to create ideas and have them ready to move forward with them when the timing is right.

To know more about achieving innovation success through luck and skill, listen to this week's show: Innovation Success, Skill or Luck.

A challenger is someone who ignores old thought patterns, doesn't let others hold them back, and confronts the dominant player. In the story of David and Goliath, David defeated the giant because he approached him differently. As an organization, you need to think differently to challenge a well-accepted market leader. Challengers fight smarter, with focus and a clear purpose. Being a challenger is a mindset as much as anything else.

History is full of innovation challengers that upset prominent industries. Take Google, for example. Yahoo had 95% of the market share when Google started. Google's success came when they pivoted their innovation to an automated page rank algorithm. The most popular pages floated to the top, which people loved. Google stayed focused and had a purpose, resulting in a David and Goliath type of victory. They currently have around 92% of the market share.

Another example is SpaceX. Space exploration and travel used to be strictly government-based. In 2006, SpaceX challenged the space launch monopoly that Lockheed Martin and Boeing held. As a result, SpaceX went from a 1.5% market share in 2008 to roughly a 22% market share in 2020. How does SpaceX differentiate itself? By reusing rockets after launches, saving millions of dollars. Google and SpaceX are now Goliaths because they became innovation challengers.

Firstly, you need to understand the Goliath deeply. It would help if you studied the culture, organization, key influencers from the inside and out, investors, board, company history, etc. If possible, buy and use their products. Follow them on social media, sign up for newsletters, call their support line, buy through their sales channels, etc.

Secondly, accept all negative feedback as opportunities. Don't rationalize away people's complaints about your products or ideas. Use them as ways to improve. Practice active listening and address feedback. An excellent example of this is Zoom. At the beginning of COVID, Zoom quickly rose to the top but started having issues. To address these issues, they did regular meetings to gather feedback from people. They responded successfully to the problems, leading them to where they are today.

Thirdly, look for other parallel industries that have challengers. It is surprising how many ideas you can take from totally unrelated areas. Figure out how to apply what you have learned from other industries to your own. Number four is to build an "innovation red team, " a team of outsiders that challenges your assumptions. You want these people to be brutally honest with you and to point out your blind spots. I still have blind spots, even though I've been in the innovation game for forty years. It is vital to permit these people to challenge you. Doing this will make you more successful as an organization.

Lastly, encourage your team to experiment and try new things. Have a culture that teaches failure as a learning experience and not a negative thing.

Innovating in the face of the unexpected can stretch the most decisive innovation leader. COVID taught us that flexibility and adaptability is the name of the game. This is especially true within an organization's innovation efforts. A new capability is needed to respond to these disruptive shock situations effectively. I call this capability "elastic innovation," or the ability to innovate in the short-term while still managing innovation efforts in the long term.

During these unexpected times, it is often necessary to innovate within a 0-48 hour timeframe. I became aware of this concept in 2015 when I read the Elastic Innovation Index. This index looked at the financial tech world and focused on how quickly companies could adapt to sudden changes. Recently, John Bremen wrote an article called Elastic Innovation related specifically to COVID. Today, I will be combining thoughts from these two articles with my own.

Elastic innovation impacts different practices companies use. Firstly, it impacts an idea pipeline. Most companies have some form of Idea Management System (IMS). Forced to take an idea from your pipeline, you skip standard processes and immediately implement it. Elastic innovation may also impact your people.

To succeed with elastic innovation, you need to have a culture that allows for a high decentralization of decision-making and resources. The best ideas usually don't come from senior executives. When in an elastic innovation situation, you need to empower your team to move quickly and create a diverse approval process. Approve it, fund it, and get moving.

Thirdly, elastic innovation impacts your operating pace. Typically your process and pace are set based on approval processes. Significantly accelerated, this is the pace in the case of an elastic innovation. Things are tested and launched to respond to disruptive shocks adequately.

Lastly, elastic innovation impacts the framework a company is following. It would be best if you were willing to drop some elements of your framework. Keep in mind; you should maintain your quality and safety standards and protect your brand.

During COVID, perfume manufacturers transformed their manufacturing systems to make hand sanitizer. They leveraged their capabilities in a short-term effort to create an entirely new product. Restaurants shifted to using mobile ordering and curbside pickup to get people their meals safely. The gig economy saw a rise in its grocery delivery services. Musicians adapted and started doing virtual concerts for their fans.

If you keep an elastic innovation approach, you will deal with complexities and balance response tradeoffs. Most importantly, you will react quickly and decisively, which will lead to your organization's success.