Wow. One week and fifteen (15) “future” trends later we’re finally getting to trends that are recent enough to be classified as “we should be mastering this” as opposed to “we should have mastered this (a) decade(s) ago”. You’d think this was good news, but considering that it’s going to be eleven (11) more trends and three (3) more days before we get to a “future” trend that’s actually recent enough to classify as “like new remanufactured shoes”, it’s not. It’s sad and almost pathetic when you think about it.

So here we go again. Or should the doctor say here I go again because, like David Coverdale, it seems, from the doctor‘s point of view, that here I go again on my own, going down the only road, and, like a drifter, apparently walking it alone. You see, instead of taking the easy way and walking the well-trodden, down-beaten path, the doctor is opting to forge a new road to see what lies on the other side of the unexplored territory, because tried-and-true doesn’t mean best-for-you.

(the doctor knows it’s harsh, but the reality is just because you’ve been doing it that way for thirty years doesn’t mean you’ve been doing it right. And if you’ve been preaching the same end-game for thirty years in the consulting world, you definitely aren’t doing it right. The world evolves and your playbook should evolve with it.)

But maybe we should get back at it as we still have a long ways to go, but before we continue, let us reiterate that these posts are categorized as rant for a reason. Just like the doctor has no restraint when it comes to rubbish, he has literally no patience for puff-pieces, which he has recently read a lot of while researching this series. As a result, the doctor is letting loose and not pulling any punches. So if you have a habit of reading, sharing, or promoting these pieces, unless you’re still up for a rumble, you might want to go hop over to Spend Matters for a few more days (and come back Thursday when we get to trends meaningful enough to at least be mentioned). The fact of the matter is that the doctor is going to continue to call a duck a duck, a spade a spade, and a poser a poser. the doctor will continue to do his very best to continue keep the language Safe for Work, but the bile will bleed through where it is well deserved, and we have to cover a couple of very hot topics that make the doctor go cuckoo for cocoa puffs. You have been warned repeatedly. You continue to read at your own discretion.

18. Improved Supply Management Skill Set & Skill Specialization

The need for improved skill sets and improved skill set specialization has been around at least since the invention of the hammer, but has probably been around longer than that. After all, the early hunters had to learn to use their spears. Every time technology or business processes have progressed, new skills were required to appropriately use the new technology or business processes. And every time new processes or technology were introduced in Supply Management, new skills and skill set specialization were required. This is really, really, really old news but has been promoted to the ongoing blues category only because, last decade, progress came fast and furious and, for the most part, the professional associations, training companies, and big consulting co’s just didn’t keep up (or come anywhere close to keeping up) — so how could you? The ISM only upgraded to the CPSM in 2008 — almost five years after Next Level Purchasing introduced the SPSM! (Hmmm … wonder where the ISM got that idea, eh?) Plus, the later half of this decade could see a few more innovations that rock the Supply Management world, decimators* permitting.)

17. Talent

Due to the steady increase in the size of the skill set required to excel in Supply Management, we’re at the point where, as SI has been stating for years, you have to be a jack of all trades and master of one. There’s a reason the traditional saying is “jack of all trades and master of none” because it’s hard to do everything and yet be good at anything. But that is what’s required to excel at Supply Management. You have to be good at dozens of different things, and good enough to combine them more effectively than your peers from the perspective of designing and managing global supply chains. This is going to be an issue for decades to come. It’s not only going to be a constant challenge to find appropriate talent, but to design and deliver training programs that elevate that talent to the top of their game and keep them there.

16. Stronger Supplier Relationships

Now that we’ve went from buying pre-manufactured third party products to outsourced manufacturing to outsourced product design, we need much stronger supplier relationships than we used to require. And when you add the constantly increasing risk of supply chain disruption, dwindling raw material supplies, and ever decreasing product life cycles, the importance of strong supplier relationships is skyrocketing. But this has been the situation since the outsourcing craze began in the 1980s. Nothing new here, except the strength of the relationship, and the frequency of interaction, has to keep increasing, and even more visibility is required.

That’s 3 more down and only 15 to go. And, most importantly, only 3 more days until we get to remanufactured shoes! We might just make it!

^* The innovations will happen. Some are already in progress. It all comes down to two things. One: whether there are any VCs forward thinking enough to invest, as true innovation takes years, not quarters, and the short-term thinking of Wall Street has conditioned us that it’s all about next quarter, not next year, or, more importantly, next decade (and this has resulted in the end of long term strategic plans and put a big damper on ground-breaking innovation). Two: whether the patent trolls will let it happen. There are a number of 800 lb gorillas that haven’t invented anything in almost a decade and their only chance at maintaining superiority in the space will depend on squashing the competition and putting them out of business. In order to support this anti-progress strategy, these companies have built up war chests of patents (which, even if garbage, can be used to get multi-year injunctions until the case is decided) and big bank accounts (to buy, and subsequently bury, the willing).

Geekcat Still Says

You know I never
I never heard you talk so good
You never chat the way you should
But I like it
And I know you like it too
The way that I chat you
I gotta text you
Oh yes, I do

You know I never
I never ever get home late
You know that I can hardly wait
Just to ping you
And I know you cannot wait
Wait to ping me too
I gotta chat you
Cause baby we’ll be

On the Facebook
In the Farmville pen
Behind the bushes
Until I’m begging again
In the chatroom
Lock the public out
And baby
Talk qwerty to me

Again, many apologies to Poison. Many, many apologies.

^* He hasn’t changed his tune in three years!

In Part I, we began our review of Jeffrey Phillips‘, VP Marketing of OVO Innovation, recently published book on Relentless Innovation — a guide for transforming your organization from one that innovates occasionally, at best, to one that innovates constantly — by reviewing some astutely pointed out innovation myths, the biggest barriers to innovation in an average organization, and the problems with the average organization today. Then, in Part II, we discussed what a relentless innovator is and some of the characteristics that define a relentless innovator — characteristics any organization that wants to be a relentless innovator is going to adopt.

Today, we are going to provide the roadmap for an organization that wants to be a relentless innovator.

Step 1: All Hail The Middle Manager

I know that it’s probably sending shivers up and down your spine, as it did mine the first time I got the message, but the reality is that while a middle manager can be the biggest barrier to innovation, she can also be the biggest instigator of innovation. A middle manager who is:

• comfortable with change and uncertainty
• full of foresight (with the understanding that an unmet need is an opportunity)
• thorough and well-prepared
• participative
• endowed with persuasiveness, persistence, and discretion

can be the biggest asset an organization has where innovation is concerned. Such a middle manager who is driven to innovate will drive that commitment and vision through the ranks and help make innovation-as-usual part of the modus operandi of the organization.

Step 2: Balance Efficiency and Innovation

Since not all innovation efforts will pay off in the near term, and since the vast majority will not pay off in the quarter (or current fiscal year), the organization needs to balance efficiency — which defines the revenue generation activities off of the current products and services — with innovation and give each the appropriate weight and focus so that the organization thrives today and tomorrow. How does an organization achieve this balance?

Start with a focus on innovation at the top; embrace the proper tools, techniques, and methodologies — broadly; consider innovation as a (future) revenue opportunity; become more “plastic” (open, flexible, and nimble); adopt a rapid experimentation methodology; remember that patience is necessary; and have a Cortes Moment — scuttle your ships and leave your conquistadors no option but to move ahead with innovation.

According to Mr. Phillips — that’s it. And if the organization does it right, everything changes. Innovation tools and techniques are deployed across the organization and brought to bear on new challenges first, not last. Managers expect and anticipate innovation. The organization stops fighting fires and starts lighting fires under the competition with new, innovative, product and services the competition did not expect. Middle managers are the biggest assets. And the firm achieves an “innovation flow”.

In Part I, we began our review of Jeffrey Phillips‘, VP Marketing of OVO Innovation, recently published book on Relentless Innovation — a guide for transforming your organization from one that innovates occasionally, at best, to one that innovates constantly — by reviewing some astutely pointed out innovation myths, the biggest barriers to innovation in an average organization, and the problems with the average organization today.

Today, we will move on to defining what a relentless innovator is and how an organization can get on the right path to becoming a relentless innovator. So what is a relentless innovator? Simply put, an organization that pursues innovation relentlessly. What defines a relentless innovator? Good question.

One of the first things that Mr. Phillips points out is that most relentless innovators share almost nothing in common other than their ability to innovate consistently over time. In fact, the only thing most relentless innovators (Apple, 3M, W.L. Gore) share in common is an operating model fine-tuned to innovation and employees that are passionate about innovation (as well as deeply experienced in one or more areas of expertise and the application of such area of expertise to innovation). The IAU, Innovation As Usual model employed by these firms is organized around a workflow that is built on a (core) innovation team where the roles and responsibilities of every member are well defined.

Furthermore, all of the following necessary components for innovation are present at these firms:

• A competency and culture aligned to innovation goals.
  Sight of innovation is never lost.
• A core innovation team.
  This team is the innovation Center of Excellence and maintains the core process and knowledge base that is shared throughout the organization.
• Central innovation method or process.
  Each individual project applies, and extends as necessary, this process.
• Innovation skills and constant innovation methodology improvement.
  The team knows how to apply the process, and improve the process when the opportunity presents itself.
• Idea Management Software
  No good idea is ever lost!

Furthermore, the innovation model defines innovation as:

• a broad undertaking (not just product or service centric)
• a core persistent capability
• a common business practice for everyone
• a core component of strategy
• a process to be continually refined
• a constant search for new ideas
• a way of life

The innovation model is a framework for the operating model of the organization. This eightfold operating model (as defined in detail in chapter 7) provides the foundation for the communication, skills development, evaluation framework, and rewards which, ultimately, determine if any innovation effort is gong to be successful or not. These factors — which define the culture, business attitudes, and focus around innovation — are completely under an organization’s control and that’s why, when it comes to innovation, an organization is ultimately the master of its own destiny — no solo visionary, rebel employee, or lucky charm required. (Relentless) Innovation is a strategic choice, not an act of faith, and one that can succeed with the right framework and support.

So now that an organization knows that (relentless) innovation is in its reach, how does it get there? That is the subject for the third, and final, part of our review.

This is Part I of a review of Jeffrey Phillips‘, VP Marketing of OVO Innovation, recently published book on Relentless Innovation, his guide for transforming your organization from one that innovates occasionally, at best, to one that innovates constantly.

Before we get into the core of what relentless innovation is, or why your organization needs it, we’re going to set the stage by reviewing the astutely pointed out innovation myths, the biggest barriers to innovation in an average organization, and the problems with the average organization today — as detailed in the first four chapters of the book.

According to Jeffrey, some of the biggest myths in innovation that pervade an average organization, and prevent it from being relentlessly innovative, are the following:

• Individual, innovative leadership accounts for the majority of a firm’s success.
  The truth is that sustained innovation goes beyond visionary leaders (who are often a one- or two- trick pony).
• The level of industry competition dictates the amount of innovation (required).
  Industry competition might foster innovation, but it doesn’t guarantee innovation (leadership).
• It is possible for firms to copy the product or service offerings of market leaders while retaining competitive advantage through low costs or higher service. There are a host of problems with this fast follower mindset. First, it’s not always possible to be fast enough in markets where products have life-spans of a year or less. Second, the more one follows, the less one leads, and the less likely one will be able to innovate. Third, the lack of (time for) market research prevents a following organization from differentiating what features make the market leader’s product or service attractive. Fourth, by the time the product gets out, a majority of market share could already be gone!
• Due to changes in a globalizing world, no firm can sustain innovation leadership over the long term. The truth is that the primary drivers of sustained innovation are under an organization’s control.

But more importantly, the biggest barriers are the BAUMMs (pronounced Bombs) that are present in every organization — the Business As Usual mindset and the Middle Managers. Yes, those dreaded middle managers that everyone says you should right-size as soon as possible as they aren’t leading and they aren’t delivering products or services. (But, in fact, you shouldn’t really right-size them, just put them in the right mindset, but we’ll discuss this in a subsequent post.) These two barriers are the worst because they dictate what work is done, and how such work gets done. (Sustained) Innovation requires that the right work be tackled in the right way — so it’s natural that a BAU mindset that dissuades innovation in the hands of risk-averse middle managers is the best way to guarantee that innovation does not occur in an organization. Furthermore, any attempt to force-fit innovation into a BAU model that was not designed for innovation will fail.

The worst thing about a BAU that dissuades innovation is that any action that delays innovation starts and continues a viscous cycle that will delay innovation until the organization is on the verge of bankruptcy, obsolescence, or both.

So why are Middle Managers the biggest threat to innovation in a traditional organization? They have the most at stake when a threat emerges to the operating model that they are compensated against. If they miss their metrics, they will lose money in the best case and their job in the worst case. So they will look to squash any effort that is not 100% in line with the business-as-usual mindset that, generally, promotes efficiency, cost-reduction, and risk-minimization — three factors innovation projects in an early stage generally do not possess.

And innovation is desperately needed in an average organization. As Jeffrey reports, in 2010, a survey found that while CEOs consistently ranked innovation as one of their top three priorities, less than 25% of manufacturing organizations in the US innovated a new product in the last three years and less than 8% of service organizations innovated a new offering in the last three years! The fact that only 1 in 4 manufacturing organizations can innovate a product in 3 years and that only 1 in 12 service organizations can innovate a service offering in 3 years is telling!

Presumably more than 1 in 4 tried, but failed. Why? Probably for one of the following four reasons outlined by Mr. Phillips:

• Poor strategy communication.
  This dooms just about any project to failure.
• Lack of resources.
  Innovation does require enough resources to get the job done.
• Demands for quarterly results.
  Not all projects finish within the quarter, or even the year. Sometimes a big up front investment is needed for a huge payout later.
• Fear of uncertainty and risk.
  Aggressive innovation projects can present some of the biggest risks an organization faces internally.

And even those that succeeded probably couldn’t reliably replicate the effort because:

• There was no plan.
  A plan that says what the organization will, and won’t do, is needed to keep things on track.
• Not enough time was allocated to (the) subsequent project(s).
  Innovation not only requires enough people (who must be dedicated to it) and resources, but enough time to get the job done.
• A Project Mindset was applied.
  As a result lessons learned that could be applied to other innovation efforts are not documented and lost.
• A Control Focus was maintained.
  Middle managers try to “control” the project as they would a manufacturing project to “minimize” risk and, in fact, do the exact opposite!
• The effort was too isolated from business as usual.
  While skunkworks sometimes works (when the team is dedicated 100% of the time and given all of the time and resources they need), it generally doesn’t. Support is typically required for success.
• The innovation effort was outsourced.
  This is a crapshoot.

In other words, innovation is rare and relentless innovation, a trait Jeffrey claims is going to be necessary for organizations to survive in today’s ever-changing marketplace, is rarer still. So what can an organization do? That will be the subject of Part II.