A642.9.4.RB_SchreterPaul

After nine weeks of this course, I can now say that I have come across a plethora of information that has helped shape my idea of innovation and how to apply it into my organization. It’s been a tough nine weeks for me, but I have been able to narrow it down to three memorable ideas that I will take with me. The first element is that of culture, the second element is that of ensuring marketing embrace, and the third element is Ries’ build-measure-learn wheel.

            The first element is that of changing the culture. It is said “culture is the sum of the values, beliefs and assumptions of human groups. – The culture of your organization shapes the way people create, think and solve problems.” (McKeown, 2014) What this means is that culture can make or break the difference between having one that is innovative verses one that is toxic. The current culture within my organization is that of being “idea-friendly” where “creativity is welcomed since new ideas are valued.” (McKeown, 2014) Currently if someone proposes an idea it is welcomed and then discussed on viability. However this alone isn’t enough, but instead we must be “idea-hungry.” We need to actively seek out ideas from outside the organization so that we can thrive on the ever-growing demand placed on us. People won’t know how to submit their ideas unless we extract it from their brains ourselves.

            The second element is ensuring that our innovative ideas are embraced by the market place. I actually learned about this before in a previous course, but to be able to refresh my learning on the idea has been mind opening and refreshing. The basic idea was that in order to take over the large market (early/late majority), you must first focus on the innovators and early adopters. (Moore, 1991) Aim the product and marketing techniques at these individuals first, because the majority of the market won’t switch unless its already been proven by other members of the market. McKeown talks about the same life cycle in his book stating, “the more you understand what makes an idea attractive, the better chance you have of making people make room for your innovation in their lives.” (McKeown, 2014) This speaks perfectly with how we would have too approach new ideas in my organization.

            The third element is Ries’ build-measure-learn wheel. The idea here is to “learn faster than the situation is changing. So fast that you can see an opportunity, test that opportunity and then adapt to make the most of that opportunity.” (McKeown, 2014) In other words, you need to learn what it is you have to do, build what it is that solves the problem, then ask for customer feedback so that you can make another round of improvements or changes. In a way this is incredibly iterative and gets the customers involved, so that there is no disconnect between developers and customer needs.

            The three elements that I most value in this course that I learned include the importance of changing the culture, ensuring that ideas are embraced by the marketplace, and finally Ries’ build-measure-learn wheel. While these aren’t all the best ideas that I’ve learned, these are the three that I plan to take with me to my organization and implement right away. In a way the leaders before me have already set up the environment, now its my turn to ensure that it stays that way and lives on with the generations after me.

References

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

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

A642.8.4.RB_SchreterPaul

            The lean start up versus the big angry giant has always been a debate over the years. It would seem as if however that the trend has been moving towards the more, agile plans as opposed to the big and bulky. Back to the beginnings of man, technology would only develop and double in potential every hundred or so years. Today, it seems as if its been growing exponentially. Steve Blank introduces three key principles that new teams and new businesses needed to take note of: the first principle is to build hypothesis, the second principle is to test the hypothesis, and the third principle is to build iteratively. (Blank, 2013) I will tie these three principles and parallel them with Ries’ build-measure-learn (RBML) wheel as introduced by McKeown. (McKeown, 2014)

            The first principle is to build a hypothesis. This is where you need to figure out what it is you need to learn and figure out how it is you create value for the customer. In RBML, this is the learning stage, which leads up to the measure stage. (McKeown, 2014) Just like any business plan, you have to start somewhere. This is where the hypothesis comes in.

            The second principle is to test the hypothesis. This is where you “go out and ask potential users, purchases, and partners for feedback on all elements of the business model, including product features, pricing, distribution channels, and affordable customer acquisition strategies.” (Blank, 2013) This closely ties in with RBML’s measure portion of the wheel. (McKeown, 2014) The idea is to figure out by asking the customers directly if you will be building something viable towards their needs. If there is a disconnect then go back to the first principle and develop a new hypothesis. Otherwise, start building it!

            The third principle is to build iteratively. It is said “agile development eliminates wasted time and resources by developing the product iteratively and incrementally. It’s the process by which startups create the minimum viable products they test.” (Blank, 2013) This is where the build section of the RBML wheel comes in, where you build that minimum viable product and then gets the feedback necessary to build upon that product. This way time isn’t wasted on building what the customer doesn’t want. Then when this is complete, start the entire process over again!

            The three main principles covered by Blank are: first to build a hypothesis, second to test the hypothesis, and third to build iteratively. This is closely tied with Ries’ build-measure-learn wheel and in fact rather compliments one another. By being agile, companies and teams will better be able to adapt and maneuver the market without the major risks of creating a master five-year plan. My listening and working with the customer, you better ensure the success of your idea and your product.

References

Blank, S. (2013). Why the Lean Start-Up Changes Everything. Harvard Business REview , 63-72.

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

A642.7.4.RB_SchreterPaul

            I’ve always viewed innovation and disruptive innovation as being the same thing, but viewed from different perspectives. Innovation can be defined as “the process of translating an idea or invention into a good or service that creates value or for which customers will pay.” (WebFinance, Inc, 2015) The differences between innovation and disruptive innovation are that one benefits you the other is out to destroy you. I will reflect upon how one may navigate their way thru innovation, what to look out for with disruptive innovation, and finally how to approach the two together.

            When it comes to innovation there are many techniques to use as a strategy. McKeown brings up the idea of Ries’ build-measure-learn wheel. (McKeown, 2014) This idea is incredible iterative in the sense that you’re constantly refining and redefining the product so that it better suits the needs of the customer. The idea is to be able to get feedback relatively quickly so that you know if you’re heading in the right direction or if change needs to occur. This also allows your innovation to be more agile against future disruptive innovation.

            Disruptive innovation can come in many forms and strengths, but all of it should be treated equally when evaluating their potential. Wessel and Christensen give three things you must consider with a potential disruptive innovation: the disrupter’s advantage, your own advantage, and finally how easily the disrupter might co-opt your advantage in the future. (Wessel & Christensen, 2012) With this you can gain new insights and reveal if the new disruption will be a slow one, a fast one, and how dangerous. There are some questions that should be asked too, such as what sort of barriers are there? Wessel and Christensen recommend finding out the momentum barrier, the tech-implementation barrier, the ecosystem barrier, the new-technologies barrier, and finally the business model barrier. (Wessel & Christensen, 2012) The more difficult the barrier, the less likely the disruptive innovation will be dangerous and will allow more time in react. So what if a disruptive innovation occurs midst cycle of innovation?

            As discussed before, Ries build-measure-learn wheel is iterative in nature. Should something disruptive come along, then a it would be a good opportunity to pause at the next complete iteration and then employ Osborn and Parne’s creative problem-solving. (McKeown, 2014) The basic run down of this strategy is to take it in three parts: explore the challenges, generate ideas, and prepare for action. When a disruptive innovation is released, it has become a new challenge. This new challenge needs to be evaluated and conquered in order to stay ahead of the game. Perhaps then, the current innovation project would then either need to continue its course, change direction, or gets cancelled altogether.

            Discussed were a strategy to use for leading innovation, things to watch out for in disruptive innovation, and finally an approach to innovation should it occur at the same time as disruptive innovation. If its one thing that’s constant with the world, it’s change. As time goes on, we need to be ever more adaptable to new disruptive challenges or perish as we fall behind.

References

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

WebFinance, Inc. (2015). Innovation. Retrieved 2015, from Business Disctionary: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/innovation.html

Wessel, M., & Christensen, C. (2012). Surviving Disruption. Harvard Business Review , 56-65.

A642.6.4.RB_SchreterPaul

There are many strategies for leading innovative projects, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. I happen to be moving into a new position (starting this Tuesday) where I will be taking advantage of many of these strategies. I’m joining a newly started program on base as an AWTS (Automatic Wire Test Set) Programmer. (Eclypse International, 2014) The basic idea, in a nutshell, is to create custom test equipment for the use of assisting other agencies on base. What might take maintainers hours to fully test a single wire bundle, would only take tens of seconds to fully test with an AWTS. Figuring out what to build this tester for is where the innovation comes in. The five strategies that I will introduce (in no particular order) are Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats, Altshuller’s innovation pyramid, Osborn and Parnes’ creative problem-solving (CPS), Amabile’s internal and external motivation, and finally Ries’ build-measure-learn wheel.

Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats is a basic tool used to look at a particular problem and solution with specific frames in mind. (Canfield, 2011) For example we may look at various situations with:

·      White Hat: This is purely based on facts, what we know, and what we want to know.

·      Yellow Hat: Pure optimism, every reason why something will work.

·      Black Hat: The devil’s advocate, every reason why something won’t work.

·      Green Hat: Alternative solutions and possibilities.

·      Red Hat: All about feelings, hunches, and intuitions.

·      Blue Hat: Sets and defines focus, direction, problems and questions.

This allows us to potentially reveal things that we may not have otherwise done so. To apply this in my new position, whenever someone in the team presents an idea on what to build next, we could go thru each of the six hats. If it turns out to be a good idea in the end, we press on with the project. If it turns out that building the project may not be such a smart idea, then we cut it or refocus it. In the end Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats is great for discovering the potential and usefulness of a new idea.

            A second strategy to use would be Altshuller’s innovation pyramid. (McKeown, 2014) The innovation pyramid works by first figuring out how an idea will work and then figuring out what alternatives exists. Sometimes it might just be cheaper to buy the solution than to design it from within. The way I would apply this to the AWTS program is to propose an idea and then to figure out all other possible solutions if this idea couldn’t be used. In the end we’re trying to figure out if this project should be a go or a no-go.

            Osborn and Parnes’ creative problem-solving is the third strategy that could be used when leading an innovative project. (McKeown, 2014) This strategy can be summed up as stage one, explore the challenge, stage two generate ideas, and stage three, prepare for action. This is your basic brainstorming activity when trying to figure out what to do next. I would use this activity in AWTS when we’re looking for new challenges. There is so much that this program can be molded for, it’s finding and discovering these ideas that will help keep the program alive. This is where CPS can best be suited.

            Amabile’s internal and external motivation is a fourth strategy to be aware of when it comes to leading individuals in the team. (McKeown, 2014) There are two primary motivators for people, those that are intrinsic and those that are extrinsic. People can be motived because they love what they’re doing or they can be motived because they love what they get. As a leader we need to be aware of what drive people towards contributing towards a project and then to take advantage of this drive. For example for those that are intrinsically motivated I can award with more difficult tasks and extra responsibility whereas those that are extrinsically motivated I can reward with public recognition. People fall somewhere in between these two different types of motivation so it’ll be my responsibility to figure out where in this scale they are.

            The final strategy to use would be Ries’ build-measure-learn wheel. The idea here is more iterative in nature in that you focus on building the minimum viable product. The purpose of this is to get quick feedback from the customer base to see what works, what doesn’t work and what can be expected in the future. This feedback is then taken back into the shop and improvements are made. If it turns out that the customers hate the product or idea, then the project can be shut down earlier saving the organization money. I would be the AWTS F-15E Avionics representative, so to best develop a product for F-15E Avionics personnel I would have to deliver a product that they can touch, see, and use so that I can get feedback on future products that I can develop.

            The five strategies covered include Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats, Altshuller’s innovation pyramid, Osborn and Parnes’ creative problem-solving, Amabile’s internal and external motivation, and finally Ries’ build-measure-learn wheel. Each of these strategies plays a role in innovation, especially within my future AWTS shop position. After this weeks readings, I will be better prepared to take on the challenges I expect to face.

References

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

Eclypse International. (2014). AWTS. Retrieved 2015, from Eclypse International: http://www.eclypse.org/index.php/portfolio/awts/

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