A642.5.4.RB_SchreterPaul

            Kotter brings on the idea of creating a sense of urgency around a problem to attract volunteers to tackle the problem. (Kotter, 2012) Sunstein and Hastie bring on the idea on fallacies certain groups exhibit and some methods to conquering those fallacies. (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014) This blog will first look at Kotter’s idea on forming the group, followed by Sunstein and Hastie’s methods to better promote innovation, and finally how this could be applied in a military setting.

            Kotter mentions that an accelerator for a new innovation or strategy is to build and maintain a guiding coalition. A guiding coalition is “made up of volunteers from throughout the organization.” (Kotter, 2012) When actively seeking out people to tackle a problem, if they volunteer they are more likely to show commitment and express genuine concern for the problem. Carolyn expressed how Embry-Riddle takes on the same strategy by stating, “I know for a fact many of my own co-workers, and even my own supervisor, have been asked to volunteer on different boards and task groups to help brainstorm, review, analyze and provide feedback for different innovation incentives. Depending on the problem or issue, people from various departments are invited to provide input and opinions based on their expertise, experience and skills.” (Palugod, 2015) Having a varied perspective on a problem allows for a diverse set of possible solutions, solutions that may not have otherwise been created. However bringing a group together to tackle a common problem doesn’t necessarily lead to success.

            Sunstein and Hastie brought forth the idea that groups have any number of issues that can lead to groupthink or a derailment of some sort. One possible method to ensure all aspects and ideas are being considered is to have a devils advocate within the group. A devils advocate is someone who “takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further.” (Devil's advocate, 2015) When a group is threatened with groupthink, devils advocates are likely to bring up alternative views that people will be forced to consider and to properly weight the options. A second possible method to ensure a better functioning group and promote innovation is so silence the leader. It is said “leaders often promote self-censorship by expressing their own views early, thus discouraging disagreement.” (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014) This directly causes groupthink and so it is recommended that leaders (or anyone who tends to be more extroverted) be silent at first to encourage those more introverted to contribute. Sometimes it’s the quiet ones that tend to be the most genius.

            So how can these two studies be used and applied within the military setting? The first step is to have a call to action around a particular problem and seek volunteers. For example the SAPR (sexual assault prevention and response) was created in the United States Air Force to assist victims of sexual assault, primarily an all-volunteer group. The second step is to facilitate an environment that encourages innovative thought and contributions. Within a military setting, similar to Sunstein and Hastie’s silencing the leader idea would be to hide military rank. VA’s come from all ranks within the enlisted and officer force structure, however all VA’s share the same goal and are considered to be equal with one another. By removing rank from the equation, people will not feel obligated to agree with someone due to their rank.

            Reviewed were Kotter’s ideas of forming a group around a problem or common cause, followed by Sunstein and Hastie’s ideas of preventing groupthink and better coming up with ideas, and finally how some of these ideas can be applied in the military setting. Nearly everyone within an organization has something to offer, but only to the causes that they care about. When you seek a volunteer group of people who fight for what they believe, a beautiful growth of ideas will emerge.

References

Devil's advocate. (2015, April 3). Retrieved 2015, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate

Kotter, J. (2012). Accelerate. Harvard Business Review , 44-58.

Palugod, C. (2015). A642.5.2.DQ - Accelerate. MSLD 642.

Sunstein, C., & Hastie, R. (2014). Making dumb groups smarter. Harvard Business Review , 90-98.

A642.4.3.RB_SchreterPaul

            It has been shown in 11 developed countries that social climate and monetary policy are what stimulate innovation. (Martín & Ribeiro, 2012) It is therefore true that the rate of innovation is closely tied to the boom and bust cycles of the economy. When the economy is bullish, more lending and more financial backing is available to stimulate innovation. When the economy is bearish, the economic system becomes more conservative, money disappears, and innovation comes to a grinding halt. What Robert Gordon has to offer in his 2013 TED talk holds some truths, however it’s not entirely to the extent to which he believes. (Gordon, 2013) I will explain why Robert Gordon is partially correct, what he has wrong, and how the life cycle of innovation is influenced by economic factors.

            Robert Gordon brings forth the idea that there are headwinds, one of which is debt, hitting the United States and slowing economic growth. (Gordon, 2013) While debt in itself isn’t bad, it does have a tendency to create short term and longer-term cycles of bullish and bearish markets. Ray Dalio perfectly explains this in his “How the Economic Machine Works” animated video. (Bridgewater, 2013) Credit can be used as a simulative for the economy and as a result, innovation booms. However with every boom also comes a bust. With federal interest rates so low and the economic growth coming to a halt, it is likely that we are in a deleveraging situation. Hence Robert Gordon’s prediction for the short term is likely to be true. However what about the long term?

            Erik Brynjolfsson compared labor productivity from 1890-1940 and 1960-2011 and noticed that they were both very similar and in the upward direction. (Brynjolfsson, 2013) He also mentioned that after a lag between the 1940’s and 1960’s, productivity began to accelerate again. A massive deleveraging of the economy back in the 1930’s caused this lag and is likely what we are experiencing now. Once this deleveraging is out of its cycle, productivity will pick up again and innovation will begin to experience stimulation. As Martín and Ribeiro have proven, social climate and monetary policy are what stimulate innovation.

            This weeks discussion talks about the “hard work” that comes into play with  innovation. McKeown introduces the idea of what's called the life cycle of innovation. (McKeown, 2014) This life cycle includes the pre-innovation stage, the innovation stage, and finally the post-innovation stage. The pre-innovation stage requires almost to no resources to figure out what opportunities there are. It’s the innovation stage, the stage that starts that initial commitment, is where resources are most likely required. Resources are required to innovate and resources are required to take advantage of that innovation. For example if a super efficient electric car comes out, its an innovative product, but unless the market is able to afford such innovation, it is likely to die or not pick up speed until a later date in time. In other words, during a recession or deleveraging, innovation is halted.

            I explained why Robert Gordon’s talk on future growth is partially right, why his talk is also partially wrong, and how the innovation cycle is influenced by the economy. In a resource rich environment, innovation thrives. However if starved, it becomes limited in capacity.

References

Bridgewater. (2013). ow The Economic Machine Works by Ray Dalio. Retrieved 2015, from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=81&v=PHe0bXAIuk0

Brynjolfsson, E. (2013). Erik Brynjolfsson: The key to growth? Race with the machines. Retrieved 2015, from TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/erik_brynjolfsson_the_key_to_growth_race_em_with_em_the_machines#t-284541

Gordon, R. (2013). The death of innovation, the end of growth. Retrieved 2015, from TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_gordon_the_death_of_innovation_the_end_of_growth

Martín, M.-Á. G., & Ribeiro, D. (2012). Innovation and Economic Growth: Factors that Encourages Innovation. Cuadernos de Gestión , 51-58.

McKeown, M. (2014). The Innovation Book. London: Pearson.

A642.3.3.RB_SchreterPaul

            There are a number of lessons to be learned in this weeks reading. Each lesson is something that I will be able to take back with me when I’m in such a position to implement such lessons. The three lessons learned include delegating to lower levels, developing a purpose, and finally consulting with the mavericks.

The first lesson learned was that organizations should delegate to the lower levels of the organization. It is said that “there are good reasons for delegating organic growth to the operating units: They are closer to the front line and so are well positioned to spot opportunities.” (Favaro, Meer, & Sharma, 2012) High-level strategic leaders can often be disconnected with the day-to-day operations of those at the lowest level. It’s the people that are doing the work day in and day out that see where improvements can be made and as such should be given the authority to make such improvements. The idea is to take on a bottom up approach, which is to get “more people involved who are lower down in the traditional hierarchy. There are front-line employees who are well placed to find problem-insights and be motivated to find solutions.” (McKeown, 2014) By involving people at the bottom, the overall organizational brain increases in size.

The second lesson learned was to develop a purpose. Hirotaka Takeuchi, a management professor at Harvard Business School, brings up that “Purpose is at the essence of why firms exists. There is nothing mushy about it—it is pure strategy.” (Safian, 2014) Having a purpose is what brings people and the organization to life and is what brings them together. Yukl brings up the idea that “the appeal of a vision depends on its ideological content as well as on its relevance for the challenges facing the organization. If the vision embodies shared values and ideals for most members of the organization, it is more likely to elicit their commitment.” (Yukl, 2013) The term purpose and vision are rather synonymous with each other, so Yukl’s point holds true. When members can take hold of an idea, a vision, and a purpose, dedication and loyalty will follow.

Finally the last lesson learned is that to discover true, useful innovation to first get with the mavericks of the organization. This ties into this week’s class discussion question, “how can organizations ensure that new ideas are embraced by the market place?” A maverick can be defined as someone who “challenge conventions and intentionally break with traditions. But they are interested in the overall well-being of the group.” (McKeown, 2014) The mavericks on the front lines are the ones that can really help the organization, even if it appears that they break direct orders. Geoffrey Moore brings up the idea that in order to implement an innovative new product into the market that you must first appeal to the innovators and early adopters first. (Moore, 1991) The idea is that if the majority of the market can see that this idea works, and then they’ll adopt it. If the mavericks believe in a solution, so will the rest of the market. If the mavericks discard the idea, then perhaps it wasn’t really that useful.

The three lessons learned include influencing successful innovation by delegating to lower levels of the organization, developing a vision and purpose, and finally to consult with the mavericks and gain their approval. By taking these lessons I will better be equipped to create and foster innovation within my control of the organization. I hope to be able to take this and universally apply it for all situations.

References

Favaro, K., Meer, D., & Sharma, S. (2012). Creating an Organic Growth Machine. Retrieved 2015, from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2012/05/creating-an-organic-growth-machine

McKeown, M. (2014). The Innovation Book. London: Pearson.

Moore, G. (1991). Crossing the Chasm. Harper Business Essentials.

Safian, R. (2014). Find your Mission. Fast Company .

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. New Jersey: Pearson.

A642.2.3.RB_SchreterPaul

            There are a number of ways innovation plays a role in my organization, the United States Air Force. After reflecting for quite a bit, I’ve been able to pin point some specific ideas of innovation that I’ve seen within the USAF. Introduced are some formal processes for innovation, informal processes, what can be done to better leverage the effectiveness of the innovation process, comments on usefulness of innovative ideas, and finally an example of an innovative idea that failed within my organization.

My organization has a number of formal processes for introducing innovation. The first formal process is what’s called the Airman Powered by Innovation program, where Airmen go to a website and can submit their ideas for review by higher leadership. (Spencer, 2014) This is a very mechanistic in the sense that the “top-down hierarchy decides and prioritises tasks.” (McKeown, 2014) Innovation can be anything from a new widget to a new process that could save the United States Air Force time and money. Not only that but the Airman Powered by Innovation program could also be used to identify waste within our organization. As my Wing commander likes to say, his favorite innovations are those that allow him to kill widgets (stupid rules) that are out dated and prohibitive. For example, while “working” a specific squadron building was inaccessible to those without a flight line driving license however while “off-duty” the building was perfectly accessible without a flight line driving license. There were absolutely no dangers involved with going to this building (with regard to aircraft), so this was one of those stupid rules the commander was talking about. This was just one idea that was submitted.

            There is also another formal process that exists with what’s known as the ECLIPSE program. This program is a special program designed at creating innovative new test sets within a very specific realm of maintenance. This is a program that I’m trying to join as it includes everything I’m passionate about, creating things, troubleshooting, and programming. The program is very autonomous in the sense that “members of the team are transferred outside of their functions – with their own project management and processes.” (McKeown, 2014) If I get accepted, I would be taken out of my work center to work as a member of the ECLIPSE team. In a sense, this program is similar to a Research and Development department that seeks out ways to save the organization money by creating products that reduce time and money spent fixing problems.

            It can also be said that my organization has an informal process as well, especially when it comes to troubleshooting some of the more difficult problems that fixing aircraft might present. Every day my organization is creating functional teams, a group created on a non-permanent basis that acts as the “resource authority, assignment of team members and approach stays with the functional power structure and processes.” (McKeown, 2014) In other words, a group is created of sudo-random individuals that tackle a problem on their own. It’s up to the group to come up with their own innovative and creative ways to tackle the problem.

            So what else can be done to better leverage the effectiveness of the innovation process within my organization? Well interestingly enough Airman Leadership School, the first step in professional military education training for enlisted Airmen, teaches the PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) process when it comes to new processes. I say this because our reading in John Canfields book, Imagine, also makes mention of the PDCA cycle when it comes to implementing something new. (Canfield, 2011) The idea is that if a seemingly useful new idea comes to fruition, to first test out the idea in a sample before implementing it in full force. For example, if a new computer system is expected to increase efficiency of an organization, to first see if there is the need for the system, to implement the system in a small section of the organization, see if the purpose of the system has been successful, and if so then to implement the new system organizational wide. This is just one of the ways to better leverage the innovation process into the organization.

            The second way to better leverage the innovation process is to create a culture that is more accepting of innovation. Soon I will take my first steps in the leadership position as a non-commissioned officer. I will be able to slowly better the culture within my organization by creating a culture that is at least idea-friendly, but ideally idea-hungry. In my current organization I can be open-minded about ideas brought up my Airmen, however if I join the ECLIPSE program I’m going to have to be idea-hungry to constantly create new innovative test sets that save the overall organization money. It’s hard to change the culture of an entire organization from where I’m at, but at the very least I can try to change the culture of those around me.

            So what about this idea of usefulness and why is it important in innovation? Well, if the idea isn’t useful then it can turn out to be a waste of time and money. This is why it’s important to try the PDCA process first to determine early on the usefulness of a new idea. Ultimately the idea of innovation, at least within the context of my organization, is to change or create something that saves either time or money in the long term of the organization. This is what defines its usefulness.

            One idea that failed, or is currently failing within the organization is with our electronic technical orders, or electronic tools (laptops). We use to be able to log into them using a username and password, however someone decided to disable that and force people to use their Common Access Cards for login. To log into a computer normally is a 10 seconds process, which can be done anywhere in the physical world, however with the new system we have to connect one of two specific and working LAN cables to the computer which creates a huge line of people trying to log into their computers at the same time. If the computer ever shuts off, we have to go back into the building (from the flight line), log in, then run back out. Lots of time is actually wasted with this new system. No one seems to know why the new system was implemented or what it was supposed to do.

            Talked about were some of the formal processes within the United States Air Force for bringing up innovation, some informal processes, what can be done to better leverage the effectiveness of the innovation processes, comments on innovation usefulness, and finally an example of a failed innovative idea. The United States Air Force is a very large organization with a lot of sub organizations and sub cultures and every organization is different and run in their own way. There are some macro-level methods for extracting innovation and there are some micro-level methods for extracting innovation. There are a number of ways innovation plays a role in my organization and these were just a few of them.

References

Canfield, J. (2011). Imagine. Holland: Black Lake Press.

McKeown, M. (2014). The Innovation Book. London: Pearson.

Spencer, L. O. (2014). Commentary: Airmen Powered by Innovation program launches new site. Retrieved 2015, from U.S. Air Force: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/554085/commentary-airmen-powered-by-innovation-program-launches-new-site.aspx