Fundamental principles for innovation – what´s your opinion?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Simon Derry on October 12, 2010 at 9:12am

|Jayze,
My humble suggestion is that your should moderate your postings. They seem somewhat angry and bordering on the offensive. As Heinz has suggested - why don't you come up with a coherent alternative rather than putting down others' contributions in a slightly arrogant way. This doesn't build on each others thoughts and frankly, makes me not want to read your postings. Try to be a bit more considered and professional please.
Simon

Heinz Essmann said:

Jayze, once again thanks for the honesty!
This is intended to be part of a model - a kind of precursor for guiding the application of a model.

Seeing as though you position yourself as knowledgeable, I would really appreciate it if you would help us with the list - make it better, add context where necessary. As I stated at the outset, it is a draft for discussion. I am not claiming it as truth, by any means.

If you are unable to see the value of a set of fundamental principles, suggest a valid alternative.

We are after all trying to understand the same thing here.

Thanks again.
Heinz

Jayze Parker said:

@ Heinz Essmann,

The goal is not ambitious at all. This is what everyone does all the time (schema).

Lists are useless. If you don’t recognise this, then you shouldn’t be doing this. Anyone can create a list. You cannot just add the term “fundamental” and hope the list gains significance.

There are two types of context: a) specific scenarios, such as banking and b) “in context of the business process.”

It’s just a list until you have demonstrated validity by pushing it through a). At this stage, it’s very much scientific process.

Then you make it “context agnostic” [an awful word, smells of intellectual misdirection and deceipt and weak thinking, trying to sound clever] by putting it in the context of the business process.

You’re aiming to create a model, though you deny it (which makes me laugh). Principles are for weaklings and have no foundation or direction. Anyone can put a bunch of principles together. Doesn’t mean anything.

Even then, the model may not be “fundamental.” That’s for others to decide (peer review). You’re probably not creating a “fundamental” because your elements are haphazardly thrown in from everywhere. It’s like a first draft (for example, I have grave doubts about your first point: “CEO and CXO’s lead culture and drive innovation – it always begins at the top”; Oh really? Not necessarily).

@ Simon Derry
YOU’RE WRONG! And clearly have no deep understanding.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jayze Parker on October 12, 2010 at 12:10pm

@Simon Derry
You get offended too easily.

@Heinz Essmann
Well done for taking it so well. I logged in specifically to see the reactions, which I thought people would wrongly consider to be rude - i'm not trying to be rude, simply making certain points; didn't want to have to make love to you before offering constructive criticism.

Discussing flaws is part of the process. If you don't do that then your model will never be robust.

You ask me to help make it better, so I looked at it again.

There are a number of problems with it at the moment, including:

a) It is too general. You throw in abit about strategy, abit about risk, abit about culture etc etc etc and a whole lot more - you can do this, but then you need to put it into context with the whole business ecosystem, which is a larger task. Strategy, risk etc are in themselves HUGE topics and to put in a sentence or two about these sorts of things is asking for trouble.

b) It includes too-basic statements. For example, "Creativity only becomes innovation once applied and benefits realised – deployment is vital"; this is better stated by using standard definitions and linkages (e.g. creativity = problem identification, idea generation; innovation = idea selection, idea development, commercialisation). With this sort of method, you can construct a framework and easily tag your execution / imlpementation point onto it. Anyway, anyone who uses a "fundamental" model will know this. We do not need to go back to school. I want to LEARN SOMETHING NEW (but you must often make the basic statements before leading to the new stuff).

c) It includes HUGELY SUSPECT statements. I mentioned the suspect nature of your 1st principle in another post, so here's another: your 4th principle "Accept risk – say “Yes” and “Yes, with condition that…” more often than “No”." What the hell is that??!!! Some kind of new-age mantra espoused by hippies in Goa!!!! [no offence against hippies; I like their idealism, if not their naivety; I travelled and used to have long hair and wear funky clothes too]. If you know ANYTHING about idea selection, then that just sounds naive. ESPECIALLY in the business context where you have to align feasibility with resources.

d) It misses out HUGELY relevant issues. Any fundamental model must address those (Three Horizons; various types of innovations occurring simultaneously [e.g. 4Ps], manage incremental, radical, disruptive etc etc etc, continuous improvement [you mentioned Deming in an earlier post] etc etc etc yada yada yada).

Solution:

If I were you, I would start by picking a focus. Ask a question and answer that. For example, principle 12: "Make innovation a core competency"; this is HUGE (you have no idea). Your a-j points are suspect and all over the place. Just answer this question adequately and I'll be impressed. This is a Phd.

Importantly, become abit more critical and questioning of assumptions. At the moment you are espousing a kind of pop-psychology. Only you can go about the process of learning to differentiate between hard, "scientific" statements and "pop."

Enough of this. I have my own work to do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heinz Essmann on October 13, 2010 at 9:31pm

Hello Jayze

I have responded to your comments below (preceded by HE and in bold)...

Thanks
Heinz


Jayze Parker said:

@Simon Derry
You get offended too easily.

@Heinz Essmann
Well done for taking it so well. I logged in specifically to see the reactions, which I thought people would wrongly consider to be rude - i'm not trying to be rude, simply making certain points; didn't want to have to make love to you before offering constructive criticism. HE- Please see definition of constructive criticism - this is not it.

Discussing flaws is part of the process. If you don't do that then your model (HE - It is not intended to be a model. I have mentioned this before.) will never be robust. HE - I do agree with the discussion as means to improve robustness and thus the forum.

You ask me to help make it better, so I looked at it again.

There are a number of problems with it at the moment (HE - Fully agreed.), including:

a) It is too general (HE - Disagreed. This is the purpose.). You throw in abit about strategy, abit about risk, abit about culture etc etc etc and a whole lot more - you can do this, but then you need to put it into context with the whole business ecosystem, which is a larger task. Strategy, risk etc are in themselves HUGE topics and to put in a sentence or two about these sorts of things is asking for trouble.
HE - Jayze, remember that the intention is not to discuss these concepts in detail in a single article. The article is intended to provoke thought. Should you be involved in innovation in your organisation, you would need to add your own context - neither the author, nor the article, nor any of the commentators can do this for you. If it did not provoke thought with you, then it did not work for you and we can try to remedy this. But adding context would be going against my original intention.

b) It includes too-basic statements. For example, "Creativity only becomes innovation once applied and benefits realised – deployment is vital"; this is better stated by using standard definitions and linkages (e.g. creativity = problem identification, idea generation; innovation = idea selection, idea development, commercialisation). With this sort of method, you can construct a framework and easily tag your execution / imlpementation point onto it. (HE - I will consider your (only constructive) suggestion, thank you.) Anyway, anyone (HE - Please define "anyone".) who uses a "fundamental" model will know this. We do not need to go back to school. I want to LEARN SOMETHING NEW (but you must often make the basic statements before leading to the new stuff). HE - This last statement makes no sense to me.

c) It includes HUGELY SUSPECT statements. I mentioned the suspect nature of your 1st principle in another post, so here's another: your 4th principle "Accept risk – say “Yes” and “Yes, with condition that…” more often than “No”." What the hell is that??!!! Some kind of new-age mantra espoused by hippies in Goa!!!! [no offence against hippies; I like their idealism, if not their naivety; I travelled and used to have long hair and wear funky clothes too]. If you know ANYTHING about idea selection, then that just sounds naive. ESPECIALLY in the business context where you have to align feasibility with resources.
HE - Your arguments here and in previous posts are irrational. Using capitalized terms or phrases like "HUGELY SUSPECT", "ESPECIALLY" and "ANYTHING" does not assist in anyway, but to highlight a fundamental ignorance on your part (and for which you blame me) - representing opinion as fact.
d) It misses out HUGELY relevant issues. Any fundamental model (HE - Again, it is not a model. It is a precursor to a model with the intention to guide decision making in the design of a company's own innovation model. I can not stress this enough!) must address those (Three Horizons; various types of innovations occurring simultaneously [e.g. 4Ps], manage incremental, radical, disruptive etc etc etc, continuous improvement [you mentioned Deming in an earlier post] etc etc etc yada yada yada). (HE - what does "etc etc etc yada yada yada" mean? Please be a little more specific - I can not interpret your arguments when you end them like this.)

Solution:

If I were you, I would start by picking a focus. Ask a question and answer that. For example, principle 12: "Make innovation a core competency"; this is HUGE (you have no idea (HE - How could you possibly know this?)). Your a-j points are suspect and all over the place. Just answer this question adequately and I'll be impressed. This is a Phd.
(HE - I know what it take to earn a PhD. You have completely missed the point if you are thinking along these lines!)
Importantly, become abit more critical and questioning of assumptions. At the moment you are espousing a kind of pop-psychology. Only you can go about the process of learning to differentiate between hard, "scientific" statements and "pop."
HE- Jayze, this is not a journal publication, it is a short article for general consumption. If you want hard science, you are in the wrong place.
Enough of this. I have my own work to do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jayze Parker on October 18, 2010 at 11:48am

@Heinz Essmann

Lets just say your list is weak, so much so that it is redundant. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Goodbye.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page