I'm back thinking about the topic of innovation. The last piece I wrote on this seemed to spark some good discussion and the comments from you gave me new things to think about. Then this last weekend, while up at the cottage sorting through boxes of books, I came across an old book of mine that I so enjoyed called Thriving on Chaos by Tom Peters. The copy I have is well worn as I've read it numerous times. After a busy day of re-organizing, I sat out back and began to read the book again. A pleasure as always. Then synchronisity struck. A close parallel to another book I recent read, Rapid Results.
As I was reading Thriving on Chaos, I came across a great chapter called Invest in Applications-Oriented Small Starts. On page 240 of that chapter there is a subsection titled The Unpredictability of Innovation Defeats Excessive Planning. This rang true to me and linked back to what I was getting at in my prior post, namely, that innovation is best realized when you deliver things quickly. Peters says, on page 240:
"The essence of successful innovation is, and always has been, constant experimentation. Plans and basic research are important, but frequent test in small markets are more important." - Thriving on Chaos, Tom Peters, pg 240
I couldn't agree more. Peters hit the nail on the head back in 1987 and now, almost 20 years later, we see that it remains true and that Rapid Results builds on this concept. So in my last post I spoke about important elements for innovation like speed of delivery, partners, processes and leveraging technology. Now I can add another one that should be evident in all the others and that is experimentation. One of the people that posted a comment in my previous post (Jim) made reference to Edison's repeated failures in trying to develop the light bulb. But with each passing failure he got closer to the success. That comes through experimentation. And that is why investing in small starts as Peters suggests is important, because it allows you to experiment but to mitigate risk. If you are holding to rapid results, a failed experiment hasn't cost a lot of time or money. When an initiative fails that has taken 8 months to try....well, the consequences inside an organization can be grave. But something you've rapidly tried, something you crank out in days and weeks rather than months and years, doesn't cause the same negative ripples if it fails. And the more of them you experiment with, the more likely you'll hit on something innovative.
Recent Comments