Comments on: Ways To Kill Business Innovation Through Analysis

By: Fred H. Schlegel

Fred H. Schlegel — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:54:30 +0000

Hi Andrew, I have the highest respect for the accounting and finance functions in an organization – if those operations aren’t running well and honestly a company is heading into rough waters no mater how innovative it might want to believe it is. I guess I see the discussion that plays out between different departments and personalities almost like a dance – with appropriate arguments taking the lead in just the right measure. The finance function becomes more critical with the size and scope of the innovation. (The history of marketing is strewn with ideas that weren’t financially or operationally vetted well enough — most recently the tie-in between KFC and Oprah seems to caused some trouble.) There also may be a strategic reason to pursue a financially dicey project, which is fine, as long as everybody has their eyes wide open to the repercussions.

Many times I think what happens in these types of discussions is the same as in regular life – people listen past each other, are misunderstood or even have conflicting objectives within an organization. If we can manage those difficulties then bring on the Due Diligence! As you say, it will strengthen strong concepts.

By: Fred H. Schlegel

Fred H. Schlegel — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:20:48 +0000

J.D. – Neat idea. Do you use the 6 Thinking Hats idea as a personal prompt or have you tried it in meetings? Seems like it would be a great visual in a strategy session. Thank you for adding to the discussion!

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 20 May 2009 12:45:38 +0000

Fred, You have a very interesting and dynamic conversation going on here, and I certainly look forward to reading what Brad has to say if he has the chance to prepare the discussion referred to above. Having worked as a professional accountant, I can certainly empathize with the example which you give in your post. Indeed, whilst there are certainly some within the accounting profession who adopt an innovative approach in the way they go about their duties, as a whole, accountants do not tend to be naturally given to an embracing approach toward creativity and new ideas. I think that there is a case for due diligence prior to the implementation of new ideas, and indeed, if it is managed effectively, the due diligence process can serve as useful tool to increase the likelihood of success in the implementation of good ideas by the process of identifying potential pitfalls associated with the idea and working out proactive strategies to either prevent or mitigate these pitfalls. Due diligence should be used as an idea planner and analyzer, not as an idea killer. Andrew’s last blog post..Why do real estate and used car sales attract crooks?

By: J.D. Meier

J.D. Meier — Wed, 20 May 2009 07:46:21 +0000

I like that - "managing is more than counting." One thing that helps me get more complete thinking but avoid killing an idea is the Six Thinking Hats. I think of it as a pie with multiple slices. Each hat helps you see another perspective (opportunity, flaw, facts/figures, feelings ... etc.) J.D. Meier’s last blog post..The Quest for Personal Power

By: Fred H. Schlegel

Fred H. Schlegel — Tue, 19 May 2009 23:34:31 +0000

Bill – “Experiments within the organization” is a nice concept. Amazing how the shackles can come off when you are officially ‘experimenting.’

By: Bill Welter

Bill Welter — Tue, 19 May 2009 22:48:37 +0000

Fred, Your question about the top down versus bottom up was a big topic of conversation at my workshop yesterday. Our conclusion was that “experiments” within the organization get discovered and then become official. But it does seem to start with the people closest to the action. Bill

By: Fred H. Schlegel

Fred H. Schlegel — Tue, 19 May 2009 21:43:56 +0000

Thanks Brad. I do enjoy the back and forth.

By: Fred H. Schlegel

Fred H. Schlegel — Tue, 19 May 2009 21:43:02 +0000

Hi Bill, Great way to book-mark a discussion where answers are not clear cut. The topic deserves continued thought as Brad says. Kind of makes the point that encouraging discussion that looks at concepts from many directions can help move an idea along. And in the end, someone does have to be in charge of the kindergarten to make sure we come in from recess on time

I love the ‘doing different things or doing things differently’ thought. Helps shoot down business plans that aim to simply be ‘better’ than the competition. Different is almost always easier to communicate in a believable way than ‘better.’ (And for the most part if you aren’t different, how can you be better?) I wonder if that concept of different has to be driven from above or if it can percolate up in a creative organization?

By: Bill Welter

Bill Welter — Tue, 19 May 2009 20:35:33 +0000

Fred and Brad,
The post was interesting, and the back-and-forth vollying of ideas even more so. Porter (the Harvard guru) writes of “doing different things or doing things differently” as a fundamental description of strategy. That would lend credence to free-wheeling innovation. However, he also writes about using “different” to gain competitive advantage. That gives credence to some oversight.
So, given the need for “freedom within a framework” I hereby declare both of you winners.
Cheers, Bill

By: Brad Shorr

Brad Shorr — Tue, 19 May 2009 19:23:46 +0000

Hi Fred, Thanks for the offer. I'll have to give the topic some thought - it sure is interesting. Your posts always get me thinking. Brad Shorr’s last blog post..The Perfection of Marketing, by James Connor - A Book Review