To start with, the title of this article has no positive impact whatsoever. It has unknowingly stripped itself of authority. “12 Different Ways…” couldn’t they have used more a more motivating term than “Different”? “12 Key Ways…”, “12 Crucial Ways” or even “12 Fantastic Ways” perhaps, would have been better. But as I will discover later, the title is truly befitting to the article.

I feel that this article posits insights on innovation which are commonsensical if not common knowledge already. It is replete with innovation and management buzzwords that have already surfaced in numerous publications. It starts-off highlighting a wide spread corporate innovation myopia, backed-up by flimsy anecdotal evidence. Quite shamelessly, this approach capitalizes on the perennial shrink sales pitch: “the first stage is denial”.

The previous paragraphs are a typical initial reaction from an overworked (and perhaps underpaid) manager or business owner. They often get lost in day-to-day work, that they have become resistant to what they construe as audaciously-impractical-holier-than-thou-messianic ideas. The last thing they want is some self-righteous outsider telling them to change their tried and tested ways. Their mantra is, “If it aint broke, don’t fix it.” If I had not known better, I would have ended my paper with the second paragraph… Good thing I know better, so let’s proceed.

Indeed, innovation cannot start without an open mind and more importantly an open heart. The rationality of an idea is not enough to fully convince a person, more so, an organization to innovate. In my opinion, the most important factor in corporate innovation is organizational culture. Case in point, 3M is acknowledged as one of the most innovative companies of all time. It has literally stumbled onto its best selling products such as the scotch tape and the post-it-note. Without a culture that encourages and rewards innovation (and of course tolerates failure) it would have died decades ago as a mere mining and manufacturing company (I’ve always found it amusing that 3M stands for Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company).

Crucial in 3M’s success is its 15% rule, wherein engineers can pursue any research they like using 15% of their work time. Google uses a similar scheme – the 70-20-10 rule. That is, every employee should divide his or her time into 3 parts: 70% devoted to Google’s core businesses - search and advertising; 20% on pursuits related to the core; and 10% for far out ideas. Google has benefited from this rule to the tune of $100 billion dollars in net worth.

While the article concisely expounds on the following issues: “Business innovation is systemic” as well as “Organizational innovation often involves rethinking the scope of the firm’s activities as well as redefining people’s roles, responsibilities and incentives”, it sure lacks emphasis on the organizational behavior factors. I feel that addressing this is the prerequisite to effective corporate innovation. Now, this I think is where real myopia lies!

To balance my critique, the strength of their study comes from the empirical research and of course the analytical framework which they have developed – the innovation radar. Such analytical tool would be very useful in planning and managing innovation. But as a caveat, a tool can be used to leverage one’s inherent abilities… as well as disabilities… unfortunately.

Referenced Article: “12 Different Ways for Companies to Innovate”, Sawhney, Wolcott and Arroniz