Innovation: New Ideas from Geniuses? or Old Ideas Recombined? or Both? (Social Network Analysis, SNA)

In his article, "What are the Arts of Innovation?" (mentioned yesterday) and ensuing comment stream, Andrew Buck brings up a good point that SNA (Social Network Analysis) may not be a critical skill for the individual practitioner.  When you're tasked with purely innovating (i.e. delivering new product ideas, etc., into the NPD funnel), you're not necessarily in a leadership role.

However, if you were, in fact, a Leader tasked with forming a cross-functional innovation team (and/or asked to come in as a consultant and build one cold-turkey), you'd be well-served to take a look at the SNA first. Here's how I would approach the objective of putting a team together with a high-probability of breaking new ground (whether it be innovation or process-improvement, etc.):

I’d begin by taking a network-view first (an Organizational MRI, if you will), thereby emanating outboard to clusters and individuals/nodes.  That's the same as saying I'd start with a 40k view to get a rough cut of the terrain, at which point I'd begin drilling down to get satellite imagery much closer to the ground (i.e. 4ft level).  From there, I’d have my own ‘selections’ for the team in mind, however I’d move into contextual interviews to 1) identify the ‘why’ behind their network location (i.e. is it their role, decision-making authority, are they social butterflies?, etc.) and then, 2) ensure that these people were willing to share and participate. A super-introvert might not be the best selection, so I’d look for someone mathematically ‘close’ to them and/or with comparable levels of 'betweeness' and 'closeness'.

How most innovation teams are put together is, in all sincerity, a very linear process – Execs go to SBU Leaders for selections; SBU Leaders go to Directors, they go down to Managers, etc. In other words, it’s ultimately the Manager who is asked what resource they'd be willing to “loan” the team. Since they have their own agenda and KPIs’, this means they (in many cases) haphazardly select someone who isn’t that ‘important’ to getting things done in regards to meeting their KPIs’ Hence the perpetuating loop of stagnant cross-functional innovation efforts.  You might even argue that they're making a decision based that is limited by their "Network Horizon" (their view of reality which may, or may not, be entirely accurate).  Common sense, right?  If you were a Farmer and another asked you to borrow a mule for 3 months, would you give them your strongest and most capable mule?  Probably not, at least not if you wanted to keep food on the table and your own KPIs' met!

I’m also reminded that innovation, in the large majority of cases, is not fueled by a sole genius (an “isolate” on the network map) working in isolation.  We often have this preconceived notion that someone's ability to innovate is correlated to their IQ or how "smart" they are - not so, and if you disagree about the limitations of intelligence as a predictor of just about anything, check out Malcom Gladwell's "Outliers".

It’s cliche to say that 3 brains are better than 1, but the truth is that most “innovation” is a recombination of existing ideas and solutions. I’ve been privy to meetings where SNA-selected individuals were brought onto the team (as most high-performing innovation networks have a dense core and dynamic periphery), and within a short amount of time, wound up saying, “Oh, yes, we had that same challenge over in XYZ a few months ago – this is how we handled it.” In that way, it’s not about IQ or Genius, but about network location . . . as a Former Executive Recruiter, it’s counterintuitive to think that network location (driven by behavior) trumps human capital (i.e. talent, experience, etc.), but growing research shows that Social Capital (what’s ‘between’ individuals) is more critical than Human Capital (what’s ‘within’ an individual.)

P.S. It’s our hope that knowledge, and new ideas (i.e. the fuel of innovation), is flowing ‘between’ the network at ideal levels . . . however, as I dive into this subject, I better back off because it begins to touch upon old culture (i.e. the Expert Knowledge Network) and the way this network naturally classes with the “undisciplined” and “whimsical” Innovation Network.

In his article, "What are the Arts of Innovation?" (mentioned yesterday) and ensuing comment stream, Andrew Buck brings up a good point that SNA (Social Network Analysis) may not be a critical skill for the individual practitioner.  When you're tasked with purely innovating (i.e. delivering new product ideas, etc., into the NPD funnel), you're not necessarily in a leadership role.

However, if you were, in fact, a Leader tasked with forming a cross-functional innovation team (and/or asked to come in as a consultant and build one cold-turkey), you'd be well-served to take a look at the SNA first. Here's how I would approach the objective of putting a team together with a high-probability of breaking new ground (whether it be innovation or process-improvement, etc.):

I’d begin by taking a network-view first (an Organizational MRI, if you will), thereby emanating outboard to clusters and individuals/nodes.  That's the same as saying I'd start with a 40k view to get a rough cut of the terrain, at which point I'd begin drilling down to get satellite imagery much closer to the ground (i.e. 4ft level).  From there, I’d have my own ‘selections’ for the team in mind, however I’d move into contextual interviews to 1) identify the ‘why’ behind their network location (i.e. is it their role, decision-making authority, are they social butterflies?, etc.) and then, 2) ensure that these people were willing to share and participate. A super-introvert might not be the best selection, so I’d look for someone mathematically ‘close’ to them and/or with comparable levels of 'betweeness' and 'closeness'.

How most innovation teams are put together is, in all sincerity, a very linear process – Execs go to SBU Leaders for selections; SBU Leaders go to Directors, they go down to Managers, etc. In other words, it’s ultimately the Manager who is asked what resource they'd be willing to “loan” the team. Since they have their own agenda and KPIs’, this means they (in many cases) haphazardly select someone who isn’t that ‘important’ to getting things done in regards to meeting their KPIs’ Hence the perpetuating loop of stagnant cross-functional innovation efforts.  You might even argue that they're making a decision based that is limited by their "Network Horizon" (their view of reality which may, or may not, be entirely accurate).  Common sense, right?  If you were a Farmer and another asked you to borrow a mule for 3 months, would you give them your strongest and most capable mule?  Probably not, at least not if you wanted to keep food on the table and your own KPIs' met!

I’m also reminded that innovation, in the large majority of cases, is not fueled by a sole genius (an “isolate” on the network map) working in isolation.  We often have this preconceived notion that someone's ability to innovate is correlated to their IQ or how "smart" they are - not so, and if you disagree about the limitations of intelligence as a predictor of just about anything, check out Malcom Gladwell's "Outliers".

It’s cliche to say that 3 brains are better than 1, but the truth is that most “innovation” is a recombination of existing ideas and solutions. I’ve been privy to meetings where SNA-selected individuals were brought onto the team (as most high-performing innovation networks have a dense core and dynamic periphery), and within a short amount of time, wound up saying, “Oh, yes, we had that same challenge over in XYZ a few months ago – this is how we handled it.” In that way, it’s not about IQ or Genius, but about network location . . . as a Former Executive Recruiter, it’s counterintuitive to think that network location (driven by behavior) trumps human capital (i.e. talent, experience, etc.), but growing research shows that Social Capital (what’s ‘between’ individuals) is more critical than Human Capital (what’s ‘within’ an individual.)

P.S. It’s our hope that knowledge, and new ideas (i.e. the fuel of innovation), is flowing ‘between’ the network at ideal levels . . . however, as I dive into this subject, I better back off because it begins to touch upon old culture (i.e. the Expert Knowledge Network) and the way this network naturally classes with the “undisciplined” and “whimsical” Innovation Network.

Comments

[tx-p50vt20b]

ie9? Should Microsoft just consider the browser and let Firefox and Chrome run the show, since they are doing much better job?

[Shox R4]

Happiness is intrinsic, it's an internal thing.