Strategy

Driving Organizational Innovation – Roles and Responsibilities

Published date: August 22, 2021 в 2:00 pm

Written by:

Category: Innovation,Organizational Innovation,Strategy

Your organization has decided to embark on a program to boost its innovation capabilities, maybe shift the innovation culture or even try to change the organizational culture. Assuming that you will proceed in a structured approach, you will definitely ask yourself whether you need to assign specific innovation-related roles, and if so – which and how.

Like good, annoying stereotypical consultants we offer two pieces of seemingly conflicting advice:

  1. Avoid as much as possible creating a parallel governance structure, and steer away from overloading the organization with even more unnecessary bureaucracy;
  2. Make sure that specific innovation roles are defined and that at least some of them will be exercised by full time dedicated associates.

The first of these two is self-explanatory, I believe. The reason for the second is that if you rely exclusively on part timers and on a generalized motivation among the troops, innovation will simply not happen, since an associate’s “real” day job will always take precedence over their innovation assignment. A mix of part- and full-timers can do the job, provided that a proper structure is put in place and managers throughout the corporate ladder are committed to collaborate with the full-timers and support the part-timers.

The “correct” or proper structure obviously varies immensely depending on the organization implementing it. Very few organizations that I am aware of implement all the roles in the table below, and even those who do, don’t persist with all of them for a long time, mostly because not all are needed as a permanent fixture. In fact, as an organization develops and progresses in its innovation journey it will tend to need less of a supporting structure, until, in its ideal end stage, it can completely shed the structure as more and more people innovate in what they do, simply because it is ingrained in their modus operandi and their newly formed thought structures (for a useful definition of innovation, that can help understand what is it exactly that you are driving to achieve, see our post What is Innovation). But meanwhile, on the way to this elusive and lofty goal, here is the perfect, optimal, full blown, often unrealistic-but-still-useful-reference org-tree of innovation governance in a corporation.

Again, it is important to stress that:

  • This is a catalogue of many possible options, which only rarely appear in the same organization at the same time;
  • This structure obviously applies to large organizations, often multinational;
  • Terminology also varies widely. For example, the terms iAmbassador, iCatalyst, iLeader are often used interchangeably with iChampion, iCoach, iManager or even VP Innovation;
  • The hierarchical level of those holding the various roles can differ, be higher or lower than the level specified in the table, but note that – as discussed in our post Two Blind Spots – one should take care to drive innovation both from the bottom up, as well as top-down, while heeding the most important agents – middle management. The table above reflects this principle.

In spite of the variability, and the need to adapt roles and responsibilities to the specific organization, we find this list and structure useful, since all of the functions listed have a real and productive role in promoting and driving innovation in an organization. None of the roles mentioned above is make-believe, although they all need to be infused with content and meaning as they are created, and the task is often daunting, given that the person filing them will often be the first in her or his role.

Sixteen years ago, I sat with Oscar, a sad-looking and deflated manager who had just been awarded the title of innovation manager for a division of 8,000 employees. “I like the title and believe that it can be exciting,” he said. Why, then, did he look so forlorn, I asked. “In my former job, colleagues were running in and out of my office all day, my phone was incessantly ringing, everyone needed me. I had a real job. Now,” he sighed, “I’m sitting quietly in my empty office figuring out what to do.” Today, as VP Innovation of the entire 23,000-strong organization, he manages a team of 50 employees, plus several dozens of interns and students in part-time roles, playing a crucial role in the mother company’s ongoing transformation. His team also lends support to the company’s 1200 trained Innovation Coaches, not all of whom are currently active, but many of which have leading roles in promoting innovation in their respective units (click here to be notified about our future posts on Creating an Innovation Coach Community).  One could cynically interpret this development in terms of Parkinson’s Law – a new bureaucracy nourishing itself and creating useless jobs, but on the contrary, they are constantly being monitored, their results measured according to agreed-upon indicators (see our posts on Measuring Innovation (Part 1 and Part 2) and found to be greatly contributing to the corporation’s growth and profitability. Time and again we find that, when correctly defined and executed, an innovation governance structure can be the key to drive innovation effectively throughout an organization.

In Part 2 of this nano-series on Roles and Responsibilities, we will dive into some of the roles mentioned in the table above, discuss characteristics of those individuals who can fulfill the tasks and point out some recommended dos and don’ts when defining and performing them.

Copy with pride: What you can learn from other companies’ innovation programs

Published date: August 18, 2021 в 4:57 pm

Written by:

Category: Innovation,Strategy

This week, I received an email from Fast Company offering to propose who I believe should join their list of Most Innovative companies. In fact, every year, Forbes and Fast Company reveal their lists for the most innovative companies. These awards often get people in the non-listed organizations wondering – “How do they do it?” “What are they doing that I’m not?” Or worse – “I’m doing a lot of things like them, why aren’t we up there?” The super-status bestowed upon these companies creates lots of inspiration for trying out new techniques to promote innovation (typically followed by lots of googling and article reading).

Copy and pasting other companies’ innovation methods is not as quick of a fix as one would hope. Think back to when “Idea Boxes” (similar to “suggestion boxes”) first emerged. On the surface, it’s a great concept. And the truth is, its underlying promise still rings true: Anyone can submit ideas. Everyone is invited to take part. But the reality for many companies that tried to implement idea boxes as literally just idea boxes was that it left them with mixed feelings and more stuff on their plate to sift through.

Innovation is not a one-size-fits-all. You have to make sure efforts are customized to your company’s goals, resources, and culture. And so as they say – before you copy from a company, walk a mile in their shoes. Then you will be able to copy them and have their shoes.

Jokes aside, in this day of networking, knowledge sharing, and even co-opetition, there are so many opportunities to investigate firsthand not only what other companies are doing, but how they actually do it. From embarking on an Innovation Journey to another country or keeping it local and visiting companies nearby, there’s much to learn from any organization whether or not they appear on the “Most Innovative List” (they’ll be flattered, trust me). The key here is having a personal interaction and seeing with your own eyes:

  1. New directions that you haven’t thought of – What is the most unique thing the company you visited is doing? It doesn’t have to be a huge, complex mechanism (although it can be). Look for the impact. Understand why it works for them. Did they need to make any adjustments along the way? What changes would you require if you adopted it in your company?
  2. What’s not working #1 – Think what you’d like to improve in your company’s innovation efforts and see if this is something your host company has struggled with as well. Have they found ways to overcome it? Is this something you could approach together and share insights?
  3. What’s not working #2 – Don’t forget to find out (diplomatically) what isn’t working for them. Make sure that you avoid those pitfalls in your company also.
  4. Validation for what is working – Is there something you’re proud of regarding how innovation runs in your company that might work well for your host company too? Based on your visits, are you able to gain confidence in how your company promotes innovation?
  5. Same same but different – Look for similarities in your innovation approaches. Do you share methods or innovation structures? Perhaps small differences can provide a helpful tweak.
  6. Knowledge sharing – Visiting companies offers new vantage points and exposure to knowledge accumulated by others. Traveling abroad provides unique insights that can result from having a different cultural outlook. Staying local offers opportunities for continued personal meet-ups, and ideas for resources you can partake in. You never know what might be going on in your own backyard. Regardless of visiting a company near or far, this is a game of give and take. Extend an invitation to meet back at your company. This will be the making of your own innovators’ network where you can all continue to learn with and from each other.
Getting your company to the “Innovation A-list” and sustaining the position over time is a process of implementing, fine-tuning, and evolving an array of techniques and mechanisms. Finding the right combinations for your company isn’t always a matter of reinventing the wheel, and certainly not successful if just replicated blindly. Get yourself out there, gather intel, and then renovate the wheel to work for you.

How to Embrace Failure Without Falling on Your Face

Published date: August 4, 2021 в 3:30 pm

Written by:

Category: Innovation,Methodology,Strategy

Tags:

Many years ago, I presented what I considered to be a very cool project to an extremely smart VP of Marketing in a large B2C company on the East Coast of the US. Fortunately, she shared my enthusiasm, and the process of engaging us for the project was running along nicely. It was an ambitious and somewhat risky project in the sense that it required the involvement of about 20 high-level managers who were very skeptical about its chances of success. This put “my” VP in the stressful position of either ending up as the initiator of notable success or being forever remembered as the perpetrator of a huge mistake (could she embrace failure?).

At some point, she asked me: “Can we make absolutely sure this will succeed?”And, silly me, I answered with a big smile: “Of course not. Don’t you remember? One of our key messages in this project is that if you innovate you must embrace the risk of failure. So since we are designing such an innovative project, of course, there is a risk that it will fail.” Obviously, we didn’t get the project, because, regardless of the oft-quoted cliché, nobody really wants to “celebrate failures”. People want successes. And if there is one thing they will avoid at all costs, it is failure.

 

Embracing Failure, the Contradiction

 

There seems to be a contradiction: We want to think ahead. We want to try new things. We want to innovate and embrace failure as part of the inventive process. At the same time, we want to be in control of our outcomes. We cannot afford to make mistakes.

This leads to a dilemma: Companies encourage their employees to fail and learn. But they expect them not to fail.

Failures are at best unwanted – at worst systematically concealed, to avoid blame or punishment. Pressure is a means of control. The result: a fear of failure.

The prevalence of fear of failure in companies is alarming considering how paralyzing it can be for the companies’ development.

Three reasons for this troublesome effect:

1. Risk Aversion

Here is one cliché that is absolutely true: Failure is an essential part of innovation. When prototyping a new product, expect failure. That’s what prototypes are for, and that is why you will work on several consecutively, or even in parallel. Therefore, the maxim fails fast and try again.

But, if every failure is considered a mini-disaster, who wants to even consider risking it? Rather, the ultimate goal is to achieve full control of the process. Hence, any change or novel idea is treated as a potential threat.

 

2. Loser-phobia

If one strives to overcome one’s Cognitive Fixedness, a fundamental tool is the ability to reflect on one’s actions and to engage in metacognition (a reflection on one’s thinking processes). Every failure thus becomes a source of learning and a driver of change.

But, when your failures are perceived as a sign of being a “loser,” what are the chances that you will actually take the time to confront your failures, reflect on them, and draw useful conclusions?

 

3. Who? Me?

In cultures that do not truly accept failures, there is a strong incentive to underreport them and to avoid any public reference to them, let alone an open analysis.  This greatly increases, obviously, the probability that the same mistakes will be repeated. A good litmus test: Ask anyone who tells you that you should “embrace failure”, if they are willing to share a recent one of their own. Most chances are they won’t, and that tells you what you will be risking if you share yours.

You probably agree that it can be very beneficial to embrace failure in certain areas – in an honest and consistent manner. But in other areas, we cannot allow for mistakes. The point is, to make this distinction explicit and communicate it to everyone involved. Clarity is key.

 

Instead of pretending to universally embrace failure, you map out areas in which failing is acceptable. Then, you commit yourself to this map.

Here are some actions you may consider to embrace failure:

Mark your “control towers”

Imagine working in a control tower. There is obviously no way to embrace failures here. Imagine an airport with 5000 landings and take-offs per month. a mistake rate of 0.01% would imply 5 crashes per month. There are such “control towers” in every company. In some areas, even if a leader doesn’t care to admit it, failure is not an option. Being explicit about your “control towers” is crucial, if you want people to avoid these specific mistakes at all costs. Only then, everyone is on the same page: We give our best to prevent failure and if it happens, we report it. In other areas, the expectation might not be as clear. 

We suggest three mechanisms: define roles, draw lines and install safety nets.

When defining roles, you assign to a specific group of employees the role of innovators. It is then clear to everyone that this group will generate ideas, try new things – and occasionally fail. Your “innovators” will enjoy the freedom to explore and develop new ideas. At the same time, they will be accountable for their failures as part of the process.

Drawing lines means, defining which parts of a project are open to experimentation and those that are not. Within the defined lines, failure is acceptable. Innovation is welcome.

Safety nets are a similar idea, on a different level. To limit the impact of failures, you innovate in specific areas, e.g. those that are not part of your core business.

In defining roles, drawing lines and installing safety nets, we map out areas in which failures are acceptable. Only then we can truly claim: We embrace failure. Feel free to innovate.

In addition to the above actions, you can also utilize some advice from experts on the subject. 

Have a backup plan

Leon Ho says that it never hurts to have a back-up plan. The last thing you want to do is scramble for a solution when the worst has happened. “Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.” This old adage holds solid wisdom. Having a backup plan gives you more confidence to move forward and take calculated risks.

Perhaps you’ve applied for a grant to fund an initiative at work. In the worst-case scenario, if you don’t get the grant, are there other ways you could secure the funds? There are usually multiple ways to tackle a problem, so having a back-up plan is a great way to reduce anxiety about possible failure.

Leon Ho (https://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifehack/how-fear-of-failure-destroys-success.html)

Identify the consequences

Theo Tsaousides says that in order to attenuate fear of failure, first identify the consequences of failing that scare you the most and evaluate your ability to deal with these consequences. Instead of talking yourself out of the fear by hoping that nothing negative will happen, focus on building confidence to deal with the consequences.

Here are some questions to ask yourself:

  1. Which of these consequences scare you the most?
  2. How much impact will they have on you? Are they merely unpleasant or life-threatening? Will they just make you feel uncomfortable, or will they hurt you deeply and irreparably?
  3. How quickly will you move on? Are the consequences permanent or reversible? Are they short-lived, or will they linger forever?
  4. How well can you handle them? Can you exercise damage control, or will you hide and disappear?

Theo Tsaousides (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/smashing-the-brainblocks/201801/how-conquer-fear-failure)

Now that you’re equipped with the knowledge, it’s your turn: Tell us about YOUR experience in dealing with a Fear of Failure and check out one of our latest article on how to manage airtime!

3 SIT Case Studies to Inspire Your Company’s New Product Development

Published date: July 21, 2021 в 4:19 pm

Written by:

Category: Innovation,New Product Development,Strategy

Companies are constantly trying to create something fresh and original, but where do they even start? A common go-to is good ole brainstorming, but as we have repeatedly stressed, this is not an effective way to ideate. That’s when SIT steps in – making ideation more efficient and creative through proven, structured strategies and methods. SIT’s project outcomes are commonly true revolutions in the sector, even though they are based on your existing products or services. Here are some NPD case studies that we are proud to have led, which exemplify SIT’s methodology in practice.

Not Just a Summer Drink

On a scorching summer day, nothing is more refreshing than a nice, cold bottle of iced tea. But what about the wintertime? How can a Business Unit that sells such summer staples like Nestea® also boost sales during the colder months and gain an edge on competing companies such as Lipton, the leader in the industry? 

Nestea’s traditional approach of identifying market trends to develop new products was not generating enough revenue. Moreover, non-compete restrictions from a joint venture of their parent company, Coca-Cola/Nestle, put further pressure on Nestea® to steer clear of soft drinks and hot beverages. Thus, the Nestea® brand team needed to develop a new product that was unique in their own domain. They called in SIT to help innovate under these constraints.

During the process, we applied our attribute dependency tool, which creates and dissolves dependencies between variables of a product, SIT was able to help Nestea reevaluate the relationship between changing seasons and beverages offered. Nestea’s® team challenged the expectation that iced tea is only for the summer and launched a line of iced tea for the winter. Applying their existing strength in flavor innovation to ensure the development of a unique and unexpected product, they landed on a concept that would accompany consumers’ winter drinking habits: a bottled tea that would be even more appealing when consumed at room temperature or when heated (as opposed to being cooled). Here, the industry’s fixedness, i.e. bottled tea is served cold (and is called “iced tea!”) was shattered and replaced with a dynamic, interesting alternative that created a whole new “ready-to-drink tea” product line. The pilot product, Snowy Orange, sold-out within the first week of launch in Germany. The following winter, the product was introduced into additional markets and this expanded “limited edition” sold out before the end of January. 

 It is now an annual staple in their product range throughout Europe, accounting for 10% growth in annual sales.

Achieve Naturally Soft & Radiant Skin

As any beauty consumer will tell you, diligent skincare is the key to radiant confidence and glowing skin. AHAVA Laboratories is a world leader in mineral-based cosmetics: their unique formulas, made of elements found only in the Dead Sea, are the foundation of millions of skincare routines. In a two-year partnership with SIT, AHAVA sought to further their enterprise by developing new products. Even though AHAVA had the power of the Dead Sea on their side, in a market saturated with hundreds of different creams and washes—all claiming one secret ingredient or another—AHAVA needed to create products with a different “wow” factor. 

One product concept came from our task unification tool —a way to assign an additional task to an existing resource. Together, we discovered a way to use the body’s own moisture to dissolve active ingredients in the product upon application to the skin. Usually, this process is achieved by adding water during the manufacturing process. However, using SIT’s creative process led to the invention of the Gentle Body Exfoliator, which requires only the body’s natural moisture. Because the Gentle Body Exfoliator is untreated, it has the additional benefit of a rough texture when applied, which removes dead skin cells. As the product interacts with the body’s own moisture, it dissolves into the skin, nourishing it with Dead Sea minerals. Naturally soft, smooth, and radiant skin has never been achieved like this before.

Which Scents Define Your Home?

We’re all familiar with the Febreze brand, providing a “Breath of Fresh Air” in our homes. But until the work with SIT, Febreze existed only in P&G’s Fabric Care category, removing odors from couches, armchairs, and carpets. Air Care was dominated by strong competitors: Glade (SC Johnson) with a whopping 55% market share, Wizard (Reckitt-Benckiser), and Renuzit (Dial). However, with category profit margins high, and clear right-of-entry into this adjacency, Procter & Gamble had to find a way in. They knew that only a truly different product would stand a chance of stealing any significant market share.

SIT was called in to help leverage P&G’s unparalleled expertise in scent-development (perfumery), while borrowing from Febreze’s brand equity, to identify a concept for a game-changer in the Air Care space. Applying our Multiplication tool, which adds an additional component of a product and then alters it in some way, we imagined a wall plug-in with 2 vials: one with Febreze technology + scent A; the other with Febreze technology + scent B. A novel idea emerged; if there were two separate tanks to hold the perfume, the device could alternate pulsing between scents. This would answer a consumer need that everyone had been aware of, but no competitor could figure out a solution for. The technical term is “habituation”, but we all know it as the experience when you enter a room with a distinct scent (or, more commonly, odor) and several minutes later you no longer notice it until you leave and reenter. The market had been unhappy (but forgiving) of the fact that they were wasting their money on a room freshener that evaporated perfume all the time, but they only benefited from for a couple of minutes each time they entered the room. P&G had solved this through the multiplication concept – every few minutes, the scent changed from one vial to the next – alternating between two pleasant scents and avoiding the customer’s sensory habituation. In classic P&G marketing genius, they sub-branded this disruptive innovation Febreze “NOTICEables” and in less than 4 years after launch, had garnished more than 25% market share. NOTICEables has become the standard for plug-ins, so P&G rebranded it in 2020 as simply Febreze Plugs. 

Turning Constraints into Advantages

 

Through the stories of Nestea, AHAVA, and Febreze, we see three examples of successful innovation that not only changed the game but disrupted their sectors. Instead of brainstorming or following market trends, the SIT methodology converted the companies’ constraints into advantages, innovating new solutions, and unlocking latent consumer needs in the process.

5 Key Elements in Planning a DT Initiative

Published date: June 23, 2021 в 5:16 pm

Written by:

Category: Digital Transformation,Innovation,Organizational Innovation,Strategy

We opened this series with two posts dealing with the barriers to implementing Digital Transformation in your organization. “Why start with the negative?”, one may ask. First, it is often most useful to discuss the difficulties involved in a certain endeavor, especially when the general tone of the topic is one of unabashed hype. Second, as with other innovation-related endeavors, a major managerial error in DT is jumping into a buzzy-sounding initiative while disregarding its potential pitfalls and therefore doing so without proper commitment and preparations. One key message of posts 1&2 in this series is, therefore: avoid launching a DT initiative if you are not willing to confront the challenges, that will certainly arise, with determination.

In this post we present 5 Key Elements to consider as you prepare to launch your DT initiative. In future posts we will zoom-in to some of them in more detail.

Key Element 1 – Goals and objectives

Why are you launching this initiative, and what are you trying to achieve by it? It may seem redundant to even mention this obvious rule, given that it is the basic starting point for any activity. But DT efforts, specifically, often tend to be driven by the wrong motivations which can doom them from the outset. This is a short list of some of the common drivers for launching a DT initiative:

1.    Public opinion, boards, Wall Street, stakeholders are demanding it;

2.    Competitors are embracing it, and this threatens to give them an advantage;

3.    Talent flows to organizations that are more digital;

4.    Customers demand it;

5.    Suppliers become digital;

6.    Legacy systems and technologies are becoming obsolete;

7.    FOMO, including both the frivolous and the serious versions.

All and each can be legitimate, but only motivations that are exposed and shared can serve as guides for choosing the right path forward.

Key Element 2 – Where are you now?

It is useful to see the path to Digital Transformation as consisting of three stages:

1)    Digitization – roughly, transforming your paper records into bits and bytes;

2)    Digitalization – implementing the tools and processes that allow access and utilization of the digital information;

3)    Digital Transformation – rethinking and redefining your processes and your modus operandi to make the most of digital possibilities and to adapt to the needs of a digital environment.

Organizations often mistake steps 1 or 2 with DT, whereby they not only miss opportunities for reaping the full rewards of DT, but often suffer damage by digitalizing processes that work better in analog. It is therefore crucial to clearly identify where the organization is at the outset of the initiative. This is less obvious than it may seem, given that business units or departments of the organization can be in different stages of the digital journey, that Stage 2 can superficially feel like a transformation although it isn’t really, and that some stakeholders may very much resist the implications of admitting that Stage 3 is still in front of them.

Key Element 3 – What do you aim to change?

Which area(s) will be transformed?

When you say your organization wants to “be more digital” or to digitally transform itself, you must define what it is that you are attempting to transform:

o Products and offerings   o Business models           o Productivity

o Processes – internal         o Processes – external     o Decision making

o Communications – internal and external                o Other 

Some of these may be difficult to transform without changing adjacent processes, others can be dealt with independently. It is sometimes better to go about the transformation gradually, rather than attempting the change all at once. Both approaches have their pros and cons.

What’s going to be D about it?

Even when a certain part of the business has been selected for digital transformation, for example product offerings, even then there are a variety of aspects that can be tackled and transformed and, in many cases, only some of them will. A full transformation of, say, a specific product or process into digital may, and often will, include changing how you:

o     Sense                      o     Collect                         o     Aggregate/store

o     Analyze                  o     Communicate          o     Visualize

o     Recommend        o     Act

 

Key Element 4 – Technology

When we work with a company to assist in DT, we find it useful to compile lists of technologies. The lists tend to vary somewhat according to domains and with time. In the list below there are four main families with 16 technologies (fluid number) that are often applied to achieve DT. It is not realistic to expect that any single person will be proficient in, or even just deeply knowledgeable about, all of these, but it is becoming increasingly necessary for every executive to have at least a superficial understanding of what they each mean, enabling them to turn to relevant experts with intelligent questions to assess potential threats and benefits for their area.

1.    Thinking and analyzing

a.      AI – Artificial Intelligence

b.      ML – Machine Learning

c.       Neural Networks/Deep Learning

d.      NLP – Natural Language Processing

2.    Vision and processing

a.      AR – Augmented Reality, VR – Virtual Reality, and MR – Mixed Reality

b.      Computer vision

c.       Image processing

3.    Computing and Communicating

a.      Big Data/Deep Data

b.      Cloud

c.       5G

d.      Quantum computing

e.      Social media

4.    Sensing and making

a.      IoT

b.      Industry V4.0

c.       Robotics

d.      Wearables

Key Element 5 – Behaviors

As is becoming increasingly obvious, even to the more technically inclined, digital transformation depends less on the technologies deployed and more on the people employed in implementing them. The mindset shift required for a digital transformation is elusive and can be understood as the adoption or strengthening of a set of crucial behaviors. The following, non-exhaustive list includes some items that are recommended independently of digital context, while others are more D-specific:

  1. Be flexible, break fixedness;
  2. Focus on data: collect it, store, analyze, explore, etc.;
  3. Beyond listening to the customers: interact with the customer in exploratory mode. Both internally and externally, engage employees in new digitally transformed platforms and engage customers to use them.
  4. FFD – Function Follows Data/Digital: search for data, collect it and analyze it even before you understand its potential uses and benefits. This is necessary to overcome the chicken-egg problem of no budget for collecting data until you can prove benefits of it.
  5. Everything is a pilot: pilot as soon as possible, even partially (MVP style), progress from pilot to pilot, treat any version as a pilot for the next.
  6.  Solutions can come from a variety of sources, both internal and external: develop internally, hire the knowledge, assign to freelance, outsource to vendor, acquire tech, acquire company, partner with academia, JV, and usually a combination of some of the above.
  7. Beware overload of data and technologies – do not assume that their existence will guarantee wise usage or any usage.

Following our two posts on barriers to DT, in this post we have reviewed 5 key elements to consider when setting out on a digital transformation journey. In future installments, according to your questions and comments, we will zoom in and expand some of the elements, sharing examples and tips.

Digital Transformation – the SIT version – part 2

Published date: June 16, 2021 в 5:00 pm

Written by:

Category: Digital Transformation,Innovation,Organizational Innovation,Strategy

In our first post on the difficulties faced by organizations attempting Digital Transformation, we shared a few sentences about each of 4 common barriers:

1. It is truly difficult to trust experts on DT, especially the “experts”.

2. Mixed signals from top management.

3. Security concerns (real and imagined).

4. Ignorance of relevant technologies.

 

Here are 6 more, completing our not-comprehensive list of 10 Common Barriers to Digital Transformation:

5

Regular resistance to Innovation, probably amplified. In other posts you are welcome to read about some of the multiple types of resistance that people exhibit towards any kind of innovation. They all apply to Digital Transformation, just as they do to any attempt to change processes and habits, in general. But it seems that for many people innovation of the digital ilk can be even more frightening than other variants, maybe due to the fact that many of us feel threatened anyway by what feels like a digital invasion in all walks of life. We are bombarded with digital information, we fight with our children about what seems to be their excessive immersion in the digital sphere, we read of, and sometimes experience the imminent dangers and ethical dilemmas of an increasingly digitalized existence. DT at work therefore seems to be yet another front in a losing battle.

6

Problems related to interfacing with existing IT technologies and organization (real and imagined). Most companies striving for DT do not attempt to jump directly from the Stone Age into digital. Most, or even all, have legacy IT systems and whatever new elements will be introduced will necessarily have to fit in with existing infrastructure, hardware and software. This implies: a) a need to allocate additional budget (good for IT, less attractive for Finance); b) a threat to the professional authority of current internal IT experts; c) bugs and clashes between old and new systems; d) an opportunity for renewing aging systems, which creates a dilemma of how far back to go with replacement, versus adding new technologies on top of existing ones. These dilemmas can paralyze the entire DT initiative.

7

Lack of clear ownership: regular business owner versus IT/tech lead, versus owner of “Digital” if there is one. In one organization you see a digital expert brought in and put in charge of “Innovation” without any knowledge or previous experience in the latter, while in another an innovation expert is assigned the responsibility for a “Digital Transformation” project she has no ability to lead. In both cases the reasons for the decision are an attempt at efficiency (“can’t waste two headcounts on the fluffy stuff”) and a foggy understanding of the differences and interconnections between the two topics (“he’s an expert on digital, that’s what innovation is all about” or “she’s an innovation expert, she can cover the digital transformation part”). IT will also be angling for a position at the DT table (“it’s all about IT, the systems we’re in charge of”), and HR wants their voice to be heard (“it will all depend on the people we hire and on upskilling digital capabilities”). They are all obviously right, often leaving the organization without a clear leader for DT, or worse, with several.

8

Lack of structured data to start building on. Imagine my surprise when the VP IT (and responsible for her organization’s DT initiative) of a leading HMO in the US confided in me that, while they are truly committed to a genuine DT process, she expects the interesting steps to kick-off at best only within a couple of years since they are currently grappling with the uninspiring task of converting their (literally) millions of medical records into digital format. Even technologically oriented companies tend to have a huge installed base of “dumb devices” that were never designed to collect data, or minimally so, or produce unstructured and difficult to use data. This lack of accessible data often makes it difficult to even imagine digital offerings (the “what”) let alone how developers should go about tackling the challenge (the “how”).

9

“Digital” is seen as an add-on, or a translation process to be applied to products and offerings. In 2004 we worked with a large publisher whose management had the foresight and courage to push strongly for “more digital”, quite a while before this had become the ubiquitous trend it is today. But, alas, their strategy was to create a Digital Team that received all the analog materials at the end of their development process to “convert them into digital”. Surprisingly, even today this is still common practice in many companies, where digital is seen as a kind of different language to which specifically trained experts will translate the regular (analog) products, processes, systems, or communications. First, this approach dramatically limits the potential benefits of DT, since you can only translate into digital what you were able to imagine in the analog world, rather than creating and inventing using digital possibilities built into the process. Second, the approach often creates inferior results since many analog-conceived concepts do not translate well into digi-speak.

10

Timelines and pace: development cycles do not fit the rhythm of change in digital technologies, nor the pace of change in customers’ preferences and habits. Most companies have a single well-structured R&D process, if at all. When they engage in the development of digital offerings, or introduce digital elements in their regular development, they often tend to utilize their existing development process, stage gate structure or other process management and control mechanisms. Even organizations that adopt Lean Startup or other agile methods often embed them into their overall approach due to lack of understanding at top management levels that the rules of the game are different in a digital context.

We’ve seen, therefore, that there are (at least) 10 barriers and stumbling blocks to a successful Digital Transformation. Luckily, we have developed a special pixy dust that can be sprinkled on databases and clouds to…. OK, just kidding. But in consequent posts we will share some thoughts and guidelines that are useful when engaging in this challenging task.

A Glimpse into SIT’s 7 Elements Model

Published date: May 26, 2021 в 4:42 pm

Written by:

Category: Innovation,Organizational Innovation,Strategy

In today’s article we continue with insights, content, and learnings shared before, during, and after our Behind the Scenes of Corporate Innovation meetup, co-hosted with our friends at 3M.

SIT’s “7 Elements” Model for Organizational Innovation was briefly introduced at the meetup as a framework to address the main challenges voiced by participants. Since then, we have further developed the model to serve as a robust strategic planning tool for cross-organizational innovation programs.

We use this article as a medium to share how the model allows organizations to take their Innovation Pulse: analyze their current state to plan a focused and customized innovation strategy with clear metrics. The model is the brainchild of our 26 years’ experience working with over 1400 companies in 75 countries. Over time, we formulated what parameters need to be taken into account when developing and managing a sustainable practice of innovation diffused throughout a (multicultural) organization.

Working with the 7 Elements Model brings you three significant results:

1)     Assessment of your current situation in respect to innovation (“the Innovation Pulse”). Create a baseline measurement for where you are at the start of the process.

2)     Definition of your objectives for how the innovation program will help your organization achieve its strategic business goals

3)     A roadmap for achieving these objectives.

HOW DOES IT WORK?

I. ASSESS & VISUALIZE

The first step is to assess and plot on a diagram, the organization’s current efforts according to the 7 distinct—yet extremely interconnected—elements needed for a sustainable innovation capability in the organization

 

II. DESIRED STATE & MAP THE GAP

The assessment allows you to view a clear picture of current state of activity and satisfaction in the organization along with areas that could/should be improved. A second diagram, an ideal model of your desired state in terms of innovation and how it can serve your business’s strategy will be created in parallel. The gaps between these 2 states will dictate objectives for creating the action plan.

III. DEFINE YOUR PLAN OF ACTION

Strategic discussions regarding the gaps and resource allocation will determine priorities, speed and scope of implementation, as you move closer to the desired state. SIT assists in building the plan and delivering the transformation through a variety of formats including:

  • Facilitation
  • Consulting
  • Training
  • Outsourcing

The task of transforming into a highly innovative organization is, without a doubt, a demanding journey, yet one that is worthwhile and can be made simpler, clearer, and better-managed using the 7 Elements Model.

How Innovation Varies Across Countries & Cultures

Published date: May 5, 2021 в 10:21 am

Written by:

Category: Innovation,Innovation Facilitation,Organizational Innovation,Problem Solving,Strategy

Tags: ,,,,,

Have you ever wondered how different cultures view innovation? Why are some countries more willing to adopt new advances while others fight to keep old systems in place? In today’s article, we’ll be taking a look at two innovative research studies that reveal the impact of culture on people’s ability to innovate.  We’ll also show you how to use this information to create a work environment conducive to innovation. To begin, let’s jump right in to discuss how a country’s culture affects the early stages of innovation.

What Affects the Early Stages of Innovation?

In a study on innovation in European countries, innovation researchers wanted to see if understanding different national cultures could help them predict certain behavioral patterns when it came to initiating innovation. To do this, they categorized cultures using four dimensions –– power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, and masculinity-femininity — and then tested the relationship between each dimension and innovation. Today, we’ll concentrate on the first two dimensions: power distance and uncertainty avoidance.

 

Power Distance Measures: Just How Much Power Lies in the Hierarchical Structure

 Cultures with large power-distance measures are those with formal rules and a centralized decision-making system. These societies keep information-sharing to a select few — only those in power, know the master plan and everyone else remains in the dark. On the other hand, small power-distance cultures don’t rely so heavily on a rigid chain of command. There’s free-flowing communication between hierarchical levels. Both of these traits help foster an environment where creative thoughts and ideas can flourish, which may ultimately lead to breakthroughs. So, which culture do you think does better in the initiation phase of innovation…the one with small or large power distance? If you guessed small power distance cultures… you are correct! Countries in this category include the UK, USA, Germany, the Netherlands, and Nordic countries.

This innovative research shows that high power distance cultures, such as Belgium, France, Poland, and Portugal, may be unknowingly inhibiting their innovation efforts due to this trait. If people are more likely to feel confined and afraid to come up with new ideas for fear of disapproval, they won’t even try. This strategy will severely limit innovation initiation, according to the study. The next dimension may also greatly impact the early stages of innovation.

 

Uncertainty Avoidance: Whether Tense Situations are Avoided or Tolerated

You may not think there’s a connection between uncertainty avoidance and innovation, but there is according to the research. See, cultures with high uncertainty avoidance adopt an attitude of “What’s different is dangerous.” People are encouraged to follow the rules to a T — without ever stepping out of line. When this type of environment is created, you’ll often see a workforce that’s unmotivated to think creatively. As a result, they may struggle to come up with new ideas and innovative solutions to existing problems.  Not only that, your team may be much more resistant to change. And as you can imagine, this way of thinking can negatively impact your innovation efforts. On the other hand, a low uncertainty avoidance culture constantly revises rules and makes allowances to bend existing ones, given the right circumstances. Cultures that rank low on this dimension also expect conflict and see it as just another part of life. Ambiguous situations are viewed the same way — since they’re inevitable, you must always be ready to adjust your plan and adapt accordingly, two things that work well when it comes to innovation. Now before we dive into the specific traits shown by innovative cultures, it’s important to understand a few fundamental findings first:

“Existing cultural conditions determine whether, when, how and in what form new innovation will be adopted,” as our next study shows.

 

Cultural Impacts on Innovation

Which characteristics do cultures with high innovation rank well on?

Researchers discovered that there’s a greater acceptance of innovation when the foundation is already ingrained in the culture.  For cultures built on long-standing traditions, innovation may seem as if it’s going against the societal norms that have been passed down for generations. Therefore, it may not be as well-received or encouraged. Yet, researchers discovered, and research revealed, that when societies are willing to take traditions and adjust them to fit modern times, innovation is much more likely to happen. To that end, there’s one more factor that may contribute to fostering an innovative culture: whether people believe they can make an impact.

Cultural or organizational “class systems” can become like shackles — with people unable to move and think freely.

When applied to the work environment, it’s virtually impossible to motivate your team or community to work at their potential (or, as often is required to innovate, to exceed their potential) when they don’t see their hard work paying off for them in some regard. “Most people work in the hope of reward,” and if they don’t see any, they’ll be less inclined to work hard. People need to feel like they can make a difference and that their ideas are not only heard but also used whenever possible. And they need to do this in an environment that fosters community and relationships.

For an innovative culture to flourish and thrive, the scientists learned, this form of social capital is needed.

 

The No-Forecast-Kit for Dealing with the COVID World

Published date: May 20, 2020 в 2:00 pm

Written by:

Category: Innovation,Methodology,Problem Solving,Strategy

A Short Article, a Toolset and a Loooong List of Vectors

The purpose of this post-COVID Kit is to help guide your thinking and discussion about a crucial issue: how should one prepare for and live with the changes brought about by the global pandemic. In the first two pages, I describe a certain approach to the issue, of which the gist is: do not attempt to forecast what is going to happen, but pay close attention to certain forces, vectors or trends, and figure out how they can influence you and your organization, and then try to proactively engage with these developments. The second part is a set of questions, based on SIT’s methodology for innovation, that allow you to convert the list into a practical exercise in thinking about the future. The third, and last part is a list of 23 topics, each followed by 5-10 bullet points, each of them pointing to at least two directions, often contrary, in which some force or vector can play out in the coming months or years.

Contents

Article

Toolset

A. Exploring the list

B. Breaking Mental Fixedness*

1. Task Unification*
2. Subtraction*
3. Qualitative Change*

List

A. Individuals, Families

1. Mindset and Attitudes
2. Mental Health
3. The Family

B. The Collective

1. Society
2. Education
3. Communications
4. Government
5. Religion/Spirituality
6. The Arts
7. Travel and Tourism

C. Health, Science, Technology

1. Public Health
2. Science
3. Technology
4. Data

D. The Globe, the Planet

1. Sustainability
2. Global Politics
3. Global Economy

E. Work, Business

1. Work, employment
2. Business: General
3. Retail
4. Supply chains
5. Transportation
6. Manufacturing

Article

I am not a futurist, nor are my colleagues at SIT – Systematic Inventive Thinking. As famously remarked by Niels Bohr, “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future”. And much more so, when a cataclysmic event of global magnitude is unfolding as we write. What we specialize in, and what this document is about, rather than exploring predictions about the future, is attempting to shape this future, even if on a modest scale.

There are two confounding aspects of the attempt to forecast even the near future in 2020. The first is the well-known butterfly effect, but with billions of butterflies fluttering their wings simultaneously in an unprecedent manner. Thus, the Mozart of 2040 may have found her vocation when her mother, after 30 days of quarantine, out of desperation, downloaded a piano-teaching app to calm the noisy 3-year-old. The second is the appearance of strong and often opposing vectors that seem to cancel each other out, but, in fact, do not. So if a million couples who otherwise would have stayed together are driven to divorce, while another million couples about to divorce rediscover the bonds that held them together and don’t, in term of global statistics nothing has changed, but for two million families life’s course has swerved dramatically.

But, even though the ability to forecast with a high probability of success is very limited, it is still extremely useful, even necessary to pay close attention to some strong vectors or forces that are emerging as a result of the virus and, even more so, the various manners in which the world has chosen to deal with its effects. There are two prevailing views as to the changes: they, too, are contradictory, and yet both can prevail at one and the same time. One view holds that in the end, most people, and definitely businesses, are looking more than anything to resume life as it was pre-COVID. Expect, therefore, relatively small changes, mainly temporary adjustments. The other party claims the opposite: the pandemic, with its imposed restrictions and behaviors, has triggered changes so fundamental, that humanity cannot but evolve into a state of “new normal”. I use the expression “party” advisedly because I believe that both views have an element of “wishful forecasting”; those who wish to maintain the status quo are attempting to will reality to do so, and those who see an opportunity for – finally – a major upheaval, are loath to give it up. In this document, true to the spirit of our approach, we claim that both can, in a sense, be right at the same time. Each view represents a strong and potent force pushing in a contrary direction, and as reality will be shaped by the interplay between both, it would be wise for any individual, group or organization to consider the potency of both without trying to conjecture which will prevail.

Below, you will find a non-exhaustive list of 23 areas in which one can expect the world to change following the COVID crisis. There is no attempt here to predict what will eventually happen in any area, only to map some relevant vectors of potential change in each of them. In many cases, the vectors are contrary in their directions, which raises two questions: what is the value, or is it not tautological to claim that, for instance, people will either strongly yearn and search for the contact of other humans or will develop a defensive stance of distancing themselves from their fellow inhabitants of the globe. Our claims are that both vectors are very likely to be felt post-COVID, and that they will not necessarily cancel each other out. The way this will unfold is difficult to predict, but if your business or organization depends on prospects’ relation to other humans, for example, you would be wise to consider that many of them will probably be living with the conflict of both feeling strongly the need for human contact, and fearing its risks and consequences.

Another example: Say that you need to make decisions that depend on the future of shared rides globally. Do we predict an increase post-COVID, with a strengthening of the Ubers of the world, or rather a decrease, as new models emerge, or passengers return to pre-rideshare habits? The most useful answer may be a combination, or at least an invitation to consider at least two tendencies. The first is an aversion of potential riders to spending time in a confined space with people of whose health they have no information or guarantee, touching surfaces that have probably been in contact with other strangers not so long ago. The second is a set of economic pressures that may push both users and drivers to depend even more on shared rides, the former due to difficulties in owning a car and the latter as their only alternative for employment. In addition, the evolution of shared rides may be affected also by other tendencies, with their own combination of (sometimes conflicting) vectors: will the post-COVID world be (even) more unequal, or will this crisis be an inflection point, by exposing the perils of inequality and the interdependence of rich and poor, thus pushing towards creating a more level playing field?

Thinking about the food and beverage industries, to look at yet another case, can we expect a strong consumer tendency to seek healthy food, finally acknowledging that rather than trusting their fate to vaccines and antivirals one’s first duty towards oneself is to keep healthy, by, among other means, eating fresh and natural food? Or, alternatively, will we see a surge in consumption of fast (and junky) food, due to fatalism (“Why should I give up the food I like, if a random virus can kill me anyway?”) or to a habit created or strengthened by weeks upon weeks of ordering pizzas and hamburgers in quarantine? Our prediction: both. Recognizing these two highly probable and opposing vectors, a corporate player in this space could reach one or several practical conclusions, all logically, if not always ethically, valid. For instance:

a)      Gamble on the healthy option, using the opportunity to dare not only to supply the partly-met need of health seekers but also to lead the laggards into healthy consciousness.

b)     Play the fast food card, not necessarily cynically, but catering to the “new lazy” who absolutely refuse to cook, by competing with take-aways and expanding the variety of easy food for the home.

c)      Recognizing both tendencies, find ways to provide offerings that answer both the desire to be healthy and the tendency to outsource household tasks.

d)     Lead a revolution in the role of food manufacturers in society and the economy, by recognizing their critical share of the responsibility for public health.

e)     Disregard the health issue, and focus, instead, on convenience and/or safety as the greatest consumer concerns.

We see, therefore, that even lacking a crystal-ball-clear view of the future, one can engage actively in creating it. Disregarding COVID- related developments comes at a risk, since what can be expected with high probability is that COVID will cause a ripple effect of strong forces or vectors for change. But, contrary forces at play again, when imagining the unfolding of exciting and/or frightening (depending on one’s imagination and inclination) futures, one should never underestimate the strength of individuals’ and societies’ tendency towards homeostasis, a tremendous pull to what feels like the safe equilibrium of old and comfortable habits.

To summarize: trying to forecast – futile; but watching trends, interpreting them, figuring out possible effects and proactively attempting to adapt and influence the future – a must.

 

Toolset

There are multiple ways to use the list below, some of them are presented here, divided in two modules:

A)      A set of questions that help in exploring the list systematically;

B)     Several tools for challenging your assumptions and opening your minds to come up with inventive ideas to deal with the phenomena described in the list.

A. Exploring the list

  1. Read though the topics, enjoy entertaining your own thoughts, guesses and predictions about each area;
  2. Identify those areas that are relevant to you, your organization, your business, and ask yourself what the probabilities for certain futures are, and what would their emergence mean for you;
  3. Select one or two areas that don’t feel directly relevant to your organization, activity or business. Challenge yourselves to figure out whether and how these seemingly unrelated forces will in fact influence you;
  4. Most challenging, but potentially most rewarding: which futures do you feel strongly about, and what can you do to increase the probability that they, rather than their alternative, comes to pass.
  5. Focus on an area/topic and add vectors and forces to the list. Discuss them as well.
  6. Review the “positive” vectors: how can you strengthen them?
  7. Review the “negative” list: how can you overcome these?

B. Breaking Mental Fixedness*

In this section, a set of mental tools is presented, that allows, in addition to stretching one’s mind as recommended above, to tackle head on one’s “mental fixednesses”, the patterns that restrict a thinker to old and well-trodden paths. There are additional tools in the SIT method that can be applied as well, but these are some of the most obvious candidates.

      1. Task Unification*

a) Select a certain force or vector, which intuitively seems to be working in your favor in some way;

b) Ask yourself: can I see this vector as a resource? Meaning, can I make it work for me?

i) By acting to promote one of my objectives?

ii) By acting to promote something positive that I had not been aware of?

c) Now select a vector or force that intuitively feels as if it can affect you negatively.

d) Repeat the resource exercise (1b) with the “negative” vector, but this time you will need to overcome your intuitive negative sense of this vector, since you will be searching for ways to employ it in your benefit. Ask yourself:

i) Can this, supposedly negative vector, actually work in my favor?

ii) What would I need to do to make this happen?

       2. Subtraction*

a. Some of the vectors, trends or forces will cause certain elements which seem crucial to you, your activity or your business to simply disappear, or be radically reduced temporarily (e.g. tourists for an airline, during quarantine). By browsing the list, take note of these cases as they apply to you. This disappearance we call a Subtraction.

b. For each of these cases, ask yourself the counter-intuitive question: what can you gain, how can you benefit, and which opportunities will open up thanks to this subtraction? Can it be that, even when the temporary subtraction ends (say, tourists return), you can continue doing some or all that you put in place when they were gone?

c. Ask yourself the following counter-intuitive question: COVID is forcing you to do without element X (say, face-to-face meetings), and you are learning how to manage with this subtraction, and even find benefits in it. What if COVID would have forced you to do without element Y (say, without meetings at all, or without internet connections)? Can you think of benefits for that as well? Is it worth experimenting with this option?

        3. Qualitative Change*

a. Each force, trend or vector you review immediately conjures in your mind a certain chain: if A will indeed happen, so will B. Sometimes B will be negative, which means that you will automatically view A as negative as well (since it seems to inexorably lead to B). Identify an A that seems to lead to a negative B.

b. Create two sentences to use as triggers for invention:

i.           Given A, how can you prevent B from happening?

ii.           Can you imagine a context or situation in which: the more A the less B? Meaning, even though as A grows there normally is more of (negative) B, can you imagine a situation in which the relationship is flipped so that the more A the less B?

c. Repeat (3b) with other forces or vectors.

*These tools and principles are part of the SIT – Systematic Inventive Thinking methodology. Read more about them, and their use, in www.sitsite.com

List

This list of forces, trends and vectors covers 23 areas, that are divided into 5 general groups (A-E). It is obviously not exhaustive, nor is it meant to be, but rather covers a wide range of points of view that can serve as triggers for a productive discussion of the Post-COVID world, with or without the recommended Toolset. The list is long. Browse it at leisure, perhaps turning both to some areas that are directly relevant to what you care about, and some that initially feel further away. You will probably be surprised to find that contemplating some of the latter can turn out to be just as productive.

A. Individuals, Families

       1. Mindset and Attitudes

a. Work-life balance. Millions desperately returning to work after being kept away for months versus millions discovering the joys of spending time at home rather than at work.

b. Approach to nutrition: realization that the best way to protect oneself is by maintaining good health, and this is possible through nutrition, versus, health can always be maintained through medication, versus, live as you please and trust the system to treat you when you fall ill.

c. The natural quest for convenience maximized in certain societies where all basic needs are delivered immediately with a digital click, versus the need to factor in safety as the overriding consideration in consuming, and balancing these requirements with cost.

d. Invitation to humility – human beings cannot control everything, versus a deep-seated human hubris – the belief that in the end our science and technology prevail.

e. Belief in science: in times of crisis we can only trust our scientists, versus “science failed us when most needed, and scientists can’t even agree among themselves about the basics of the pandemic”.

f. Individuals feel debilitating uncertainty, living a situation akin to cultural shock, as regular assumptions cease to apply to reality: a strong urge to surrender your decision making to authorities, to those “who know”, versus an impulse to seal out disturbing information and trust one’s intuitions.

g. Impressively, extremely complex and multi-faceted problems can be broken down into sub-tasks and solved by a distributed multi-team effort, versus, even the combined efforts of global talent and technology could not overcome a simple virus.

h. Feeling of dependence on humans, versus dependence on technologies. When push comes to shove only our fellow humans can give us the strength and energy to survive, versus: distanced and split from our fellow humans, our reliance on technology is near total.

i. Apart from phenomena that defy the laws of physics, will we ever be able to say again, of anything, even the wildest scenario, that it is improbable, much less “impossible”?

j. Has this crisis completed the rewiring of our brains, creating humans who can capture and digest only the briefest and simplest twitterized communications, or have we benefitted from this time of relative tranquility and immobility to read, think and discuss profoundly about important issues?

       2. Mental Health

a. Immediate results of the crisis: depressions, anxiety, solitude, or recognizing one’s internal strength and abilities to adapt and overcome adversity.

b. Usage of psychiatric drugs: increased dependency, versus forced cold-turkey and freedom.

c. Addictions: increase due to stress and depression, discontinued rehab programs, solitude, versus forced rehab through scarcity induced withdrawal.

d. Stress levels at record high due to frightening messages and general feeling of impotence, uncertainty and lack of safety nets, versus finding calm in the tranquility of one’s home and proximity of family.

e. Solitude: for the world’s growing number of single-person households, for those whose families do not provide comfort or company, for those who find themselves far from their homes, others?

       3. The Family

a. Rethinking, re-feeling the importance of one’s nuclear family, if there is one, or of having one if you don’t, versus the oppressive feeling of being unable to physically break away from it.

b. Need for keeping close to other humans, versus benefits of social distance, overdose of proximity.

c. Baby boom with welcome/unwanted newborns, versus huge wave of abortions with related political/social conflict.

d. The elderly – their important role in one’s life, their importance and contribution versus the price one pays for their well-being, alternative modes of communication.

e. Violence within the family – rapid escalation following weeks of lockdown, versus exposure of the problem and large-scale treatment by society.

f. Children-parents’ relationship: parents discover their kids who discover their parents and love it, versus same and can’t stand it.

g. What have children learned from the crisis? About their parents’ ability to control their reality, about their family, about the importance of schools, friends, hobbies, or lack thereof.

h. Opportunity for adopting and accepting alternative family models (non-traditional, non-nuclear) by understanding the huge importance of belonging to a community, versus hunkering back to the traditional model of the nuclear family?

B. The Collective

       1. Society

a. The huge inequality challenge: the virus as universal equalizer (“does not discriminate by race or social status”), versus dramatic disparity in rates of illness and mortality along social and economic lines.

b. Realization that the well being of any member of society can strongly affect that of others, that social phenomena can become literally viral, can lead either to a strengthened sense of mutual responsibility towards all parts of society, or to even stronger separation and walling-in of the well off, as they separate and protect themselves from the masses.

c. Coming together or breaking further apart? Expressions and acts of solidarity with those regions or segments of society most affected by the illness, versus isolationist tendencies and blaming of the “other”.

d. Gender: reversal to traditional women’s role in the home accompanied by widespread violence in the family, versus full-time male presence and egalitarian sharing of all family tasks.

e. Gender: Men as weak sex, higher probability of infection, more liable to die, gap in average longevity grows in favor of women.

f. Gender: #MeToo post-CV: losing steam as humanity deals with a host of survival issues, versus returns with vigor, fueled by pressure cooker of quarantines and crisis.

g. Societies with high Gini Coefficients find that a crisis strains the fault lines, bringing to the fore suggestions like universal basic incomes on one hand, versus a reflex of the rich to prepare and protect themselves for future adversity.

       2. Education

a. The role of the kindergarten. Massive realization of the crucial importance of this less prestigious and less budgeted step in the educational ladder, versus experiencing the huge advantage of young children’s spending many hours with their parents and siblings.

b. Homeschooling: the new wave or backlash. Waiting anxiously to re-deposit the kids into educational institutions, versus realizing that having them at home and spending time with them can be an enriching and feasible model for many.

c. Higher education: years of slow ascendance of MOOCs and other online courses accelerated to near-universal adoption of remote learning models vs. finer identification of those aspects that do require person-to-person interactions.

d. General reconsideration of the principal roles of education: transference of knowledge that is deemed important, creating good citizens or enabling individual development (as per Zvi Lam) – when education is decentralized to families.

e. Accelerating (finally) remote digital learning: leveling the playing field through more egalitarian digital education, versus a widening gap driven by high-cost superior digital content and platforms.

f. Opportunity to (finally) adapt pedagogy to technology. When teachers have no choice but to teach remotely, they are forced to adapt their pedagogy rather than falling back on traditional methods and skills, versus total collapse in pedagogy as traditional teachers give up and leave education totally to kids and their families.

g. Will disparity rise when/if a bigger part of education happens at home? Difference in parents’ ability to support home education can lead to focus on parent education, or extra support to counterbalance this effect, or it can lead to widening of the gap.

h. Widespread adoption of the flipped classroom model? Alternative model vying for widespread adoption for the past ~15 years, requires strong abilities of learning at home utilizing digital resources.

i. Education will be perceived by governments as a tool for creating obedient citizens for the next crisis, and therefore will receive extra budget and (at times repressive) attention, versus governments will prefer less educated populations, easier to control in times of crisis.

       3. Communications

a. Role of social media explodes as the only option for maintaining social proximity while socially distancing, increasing the number of people for whom a “friend” is someone you exchange written messages with, and a “meeting” is virtual. Or, social media is mentally associated with lockdown and crisis, driving traumatized users to search for real-life contact.

b. Fake news vs. facts: establishing standards. It is no longer a game; fake news can kill you. Therefore, standards must be established. Versus, no one believes in anyone any longer – there can be no standards since there are no agreed upon experts.

c. Solitude. With technology, even when alone, we are not alone if we can communicate at a distance. Communication has always been crucial, but this has never been so evident. But for some, long stretches of lonely existence revealed how over-saturated they usually are, and how stress decreases when they are less communicated.

d. Decline of face to face interactions versus rebound and consciousness of how much we all need them

e. Growth and importance of independent (from government and business) media. Strong incentive to create and sustain independent outlets but, in parallel, stronger intervention of governments in setting media agenda and controlling media.

f. Digital media thrives as bored viewers are glued to the various screens, increasing exposure to advertising of all kinds, printed media on one hand has increased attention and demand, and on the other hand starved of advertising (plus dealing with logistics and distribution challenges) turns to digital or closes. Will a new model emerge, that can save print?

       4. Government

a. Failure of democracies and advantages of authoritarian regimes in managing crisis situations and enforcing compliance versus failures of totalitarian systems due to lack of transparency, lack of initiative. Jury still out.

b. Local versus national. Only strong central government can deal with magnitude of crisis, versus local leaders and communities taking independent steps as required by their specific conditions.

c. Leadership and lack thereof: rise of the need for strong leaders vs. obvious weakness of relying on the wrong “pseudo strong” ones.

d. Alternative leadership roles: leadership vacuum creates need and opportunity for non-official or non-elected-officials to become the leading voices, or military figures to impose restrictions justified by “emergency measures”.

e. Balance between technocrats and politicians: strong need for politicians to closely consult with professionals on topics in which they have no idea, versus inaction due to endless discussions between experts and lack of authoritative professional answers.

f. Elections by digital platforms become necessary to avoid congregation, but fear of vulnerability and possible interference increases

g. Opportunity for autocrats to dismantle democratic norms and institutions vs. democratic popular backlash through digital platforms and “socially-spaced demonstrations”.

h. Governments’ responsibility to create safety nets for their citizens and population in general becomes obvious (even to “small government faithful”), versus individuals understanding that they can trust only themselves to prepare for next crisis.

i. Who do taxes belong to? Huge unprecedented spend of public money by governments with no clear source of funding, versus fear that this centrally directed spend will allocate resources unjustly and inefficiently

j. Governments must assume responsibility for well-being of immigrants, refugees and itinerant populations out of self-defense, versus migrant populations bearing the price of being away from home and family, and lacking support fro their host governments.

k. Smart cities – huge opportunity to build on existing infrastructures and accelerate development because of need for surveillance and tracking compliance, versus strong backlash due to privacy concerns.

l. Lockdown enforcement creates precedents of mass control over public behavior, especially in cities, versus shift of population back to villages and the country where isolation is easier and more convenient.

       5. Religion/Spirituality

a. Role of faith for people dealing with crisis: huge win of science over religion for many, versus many others who find fortitude precisely in their faith and religious leaders.

b. Decision makers interact with scientists and rely only on data and hard facts, or realize the comprehensive nature of a crisis and carve a space for spiritual and religious leaders.

c. Role of moral leadership in determining strategy: place around the decision making table, versus support for their followers in reality that is a given.

d. Widespread belief in religious or spiritual interpretations of the pandemic (“God’s punishment for our sins” etc.), versus a division of labor between science as explanation and religion/spirituality as guides to behavior.

e. Moral reckoning driving people to organized religion, versus disappointment with minor role of religious establishment in preventing current sorry global state of affairs (pre-COVID).

       6. The Arts

a. Halls and museums will fill up with thirsty art lovers kept away for a long time, versus persistent fear of agglomerations.

b. Public discovers that art can also be consumed from afar, leading to increased appreciation and interest in visiting museums and concert halls, versus leading to lazier habits of art-couch-potatoes.

c. Artists, musicians, dancers have all performed for us at home, many for free, and whetted our appetite to see them live once we can, expanded our horizons and made us better audiences, versus, we are spoiled now and want it for free and on the couch.

d. Variety of models for monetizing art emerge, as desperate artists find way to live from their art in the absence of live events, versus artists give up and find employment in other professions.

e. Collaborative art, facilitated by digital sharing, emerges as the new 21st century medium, or disappears as a fad post-CV.

f. Cross cultural art, free of geographic constraints, grows in importance as part of globalization, versus art follows xenophobic and nationalistic tendencies.

g. Free time at home serves as major opportunity for exposure to art, thus expanding the “base” of art-lovers, versus masses opt for low brow and less demanding activities in their CV-home-hours.

h. Future of museums and concert halls: adapting their physical spaces and installations to pandemic and post-pandemic requirements, versus expanding their strategies to reaching out and distance engagement with their publics.

i. Artists retreat into survival mode, versus celebrity artists follow Cardi B’s (and others’) example to take a strong stance in front of their followers.

       7. Travel and Tourism

a. Visiting other countries will have lost part of its charm for some, but perhaps become a lifeline for the more claustrophobically-inclined.

b. Return in droves to beloved patterns of travel after lifting of bans, versus appearance of new models of tourism (socially-distanced? More local? Remote and isolated? Ecological?)

c. Technological solutions as enablers of travel: screening travelers for fever, filtering and protection in flights and other confined spaces, navigation and translation to minimize contact with strangers, etc. versus technology as a replacement for physical travel, as in VR and AR tours.

d. Post Corona border control using a variety of technologies to enable or restrict travel, by scanning, comparing data to data bases, identifying travelers’ conditions and more.

e. The future of Airbnb – crash as travel contracts, as does trust in the cleanliness and safety of private homes, versus rebound as the company adapts to new realities with novel measures.

f. Tourists prefer sea and sun tourism, away from the masses, versus tourists flock back to cities, thirsty for human contact.

g. Airplanes taking off dangerously after being grounded for weeks or months, versus fleets in best shape ever due to planes finally resting and receiving plenty of maintenance and attention.

h. Importance of hygiene on planes, passengers avoid confined cabins, preference for private flights.

C. Health, Science, Technology

       1. Public Health

a. Discovery of fault lines: weakness emerges in supposedly robust health systems. Low correlation between national health expenditure and readiness of countries to confront the pandemic

b. Strong drive for change of a health system that is perceived as having failed in its main role, versus glorification of the health system that saved us all.

c. Gearing up for new strains and mutations: focus on solving the immediate legacy of CV-19 and its aftermath, versus searching for a universal solution to all future types of virus.

d. Change of priorities: investing heavily in hitherto impoverished national health systems, versus changing the paradigm and rethinking the entire model.

e. Recovering from damage wrought by distancing strategy: keeping the social-distance mentality with a stepwise approach to relaxing constraints, versus identifying the perils of distancing and finding ways to be safely together.

f. Immunization and vaccines: huge emphasis on search for an ever-expanding arsenal of vaccines, versus opting for alternative strategies to combat illness, given the obvious limitations of the vaccine strategy for influenzas.

g. Resource allocation: dramatic increase in budgets for public health, versus widening the gap between poor public services with a parallel system for the wealthy.

h. Scenario planning: strengthening and reopening of forecasting and preparedness units vs. perception that it is impossible to predict so better focus on generic preparations.

i. COVID-19 as “dry run”” for catastrophic scenarios: pandemics of a global scale and grave risks have occurred on average every 300-400 years, so the probability of another one soon is low, versus this was just a mild version of what we can soon expect to be hit by.

j. The ascendance of telemedicine. Necessity has proven that telemedicine is far more effective and accessible than anyone predicted, leading to rapid acceleration of the genre, versus CV exposing the dire need of personal and close primary care to maintain health and thus protect the population from future pandemics.

k. Importance of digital health: the huge importance of data, its analysis, translation into insights and rapid deployment of conclusions, versus the limitations of too much data leading to inconclusive or multiple recommendations and therefore paralysis.

       2. Science

a. In the COVID global theater, science plays lead role of savior, only carrier of hope to billions, and is vindicated as the exclusive approach to dealing with any important challenge, versus powerful pull of religion and spiritual beliefs as only answer in a world devoid of certainties of any kind.

b. The sight of scores of highly esteemed scientists viciously disagreeing on what feels like hard facts erodes the credibility of science as arbiter of truth.

c. Science is fully harnessed to practical purposes, further strengthening the tendency to prefer applied science over theory, versus deep understanding that underlying basic science and theory are the basis of all the anti-COVID wizardry.

d. Countries find that organizing their efforts to confront the crisis requires a cross-disciplinary approach, as do scientists in search of cure or vaccine. Silos, once broken, will remain porous, versus a tendency, as problems become more complex and the need to solve them more acute, to specialize in ever narrower mini-fields enabling an even deeper understanding of limited phenomena.

e. Role of data as a leading tool in the process of science, often replacing the need for “wet” science, serving both as creator of hypotheses and their confirmation or refutation, versus anecdotal evidence that the clinician or experimenter in the field is privy to certain types of insight that the “cold numbers” will never reveal.

f. Even as huge collaborative data-driven science is being performed, a rise in the importance of good old observation, with scientific insights stemming from anecdotal clinical evidence accumulating in real time.

g. Enthusiastic embrace of cross and multi-country collaboration with science as the universal language of truth, versus enhanced competition between countries and realization that only few countries have the budgets and resources to conduct state-of-the-art research.

h. Cuts in funding for science and research as part of general tightening of budgets, versus increase in scientific spending as only defense against future pandemics and catastrophes.

       3. Technology

a. Accelerated pace of technological development was already a cliché pre-COVID, but the dramatic need for immediate solutions, expressed in the towering price, both human and financial, of every day of delay, have pushed technology to hyper-agile tactics, even in traditionally cautious fields such as medical devices and pharma.

b. In parallel to the hubris brought on by a truly overwhelming display of technological prowess, humanity discovers the limits of its power in confronting nature. Specifically, Silicon Valley, the standard bearer of technologic dominance, disappoints in its inability to contribute much to crucial issues.

c. New synergies discovered and collaborations forged between experts in medical devices, various branches of drug development, public health specialists, physicists, computer scientists, mathematicians and others will evolve and expand, accelerating the trend for creating multi-disciplinary labs, projects and companies.

d. Regulation rises to the occasion, relaxes constraints and enables accelerated development, learning that it is possible and opening doors that will be hard to close in the future, versus regulation learns its lesson the hard way after irresponsibly relaxing in its role as gatekeeper resulting in faulty equipment, errors in tests and raising of unrealistic expectations for cures.

e. Technologies at the service of human and social control proliferate, for detecting, monitoring, controlling, nudging, tracking and analyzing behaviors, are accelerating ever more, while raising and confirming concerns over privacy and disregard for human rights.

f. A host of technological enablers of digital transformation, seen pre-COVID as promising but still out of reach, thrusted into public consciousness as they are harnessed for anti-COVID purposes.

       4. Data

a. Dramatically ubiquitous, from popular media to sophisticated algorithms, nobody will ever doubt its importance, versus backlash that human phenomena, feelings, well being are irreducible to numbers and therefore data-based decisions should be limited in certain crucial domains

b. Data is a resource that grows in value when shared, and therefore huge push to share one’s data, versus data as scarce and most valuable of resources, and therefore tendency to greedily hoard it.

c. Citizens have become aware of the amount of data that governments possess relating to them. The good news: they are being listened to, their needs can be analyzed and treated, solutions can be customized. The frightening news: all the above can be converted to control and suppress.

d. New models emerge for sharing and ownership of data to allow both sharing and monetizing.

e. Crucial role of data in decision making: leaders realize that they need a dashboard of data to reach rational decisions, but the predominance of certain types of data (number of ill, number of dead) in public discourse also skews decisions towards simplistic approaches (e.g. decrease number of COVID casualties at the price of disregarding all other casualties and costs).

f. As the world’s reliance increases, so does the importance of mechanisms to validate their source, integrity and precision, but as the barriers to publish data diminish so does its fidelity.

D. The Globe, the Planet

       1. Sustainability

a. COVID provided a demo of the planet resting, air quality, animals resurging – maybe this experience will make it harder to fall back to our old polluting ways?

b. An opportunity for global collaboration to save ourselves by slowing down the pace, versus each country frantically throwing itself back into the race to make up for lost time compared to others.

c. Can the world agree on Global Sabbaths? We saw that we can withstand weeks of time-out and even enjoy some of the consequences, so can we decide on a day per week? A week per year?

d. Heightened consciousness of the situation given the dramatic impact of the global pause, and therefore: Opportunity for a Global Green New Deal? Or backlash to put aside sustainability in favor of “more pressing” issues?

e. Remember that while we humans put ourselves on pause for the CV, global warming and related negative phenomena have (mostly) continued. Will this serve as an argument for or against human made global warming?

       2. Global Politics

a. Humanity has finally united against a common, non-human enemy, and, realizing the huge potential of this unity, organizes itself to deal with the major global issues?

b. Nationalism and racism are further stoked by autocrats and shamed governments in search of scapegoats, while opportunities for “catastrophe diplomacy” abound, as traditional enemies express their solidarity sending materials and volunteers or sharing crucial information.

c. Xenophobia arises from fear of the other, the foreigner: “the virus” will always arrive from the outside, confirming deep seated fears of those who “don’t really belong here”, or “eat weird stuff”, etc.

d. New global organizations will be founded and existing ones strengthened as countries understand their crucial importance in defeating enemies that transcend borders, versus fatal weakening of global organizations as a chain effect of the US pulling out, cancelling its contribution to the WHO, blaming these organizations for the initial failure of global response to COVID.

e. As the role of data both increases and becomes more evident, and in parallel the most important challenges are recognized to be global, the need for a data sharing on a global scale is inescapable. The world creates the United Nations for Data.

f. Tectonic shifts among world’s superpowers: the US continues its decline, or proves its strength in rebounding and supplying the (bio?)technological solutions to the pandemic; Russia hit hard by plummeting petrol prices combined with what seems like inadequate and totally opaque treatment of the crisis; other BRICS in general in bad shape; EU while dealing with Brexit exposed as the elderly inefficient continent (in the south) or a model safety network for post-capitalism (in the north).

g. As traditional wars are put on pause, the rise of soft power in international relationship, expressed not in tanks and warships but through scientific, industrial and social strengths vs. rapid re-flame of numerous local and regional wars and fighting.

h. Increase in power of China and Asia, the “winners” of the crisis, vs. shrinking export from China and Asia due to CV trauma in rest of world

       3. Global Economy

a. As countries and peoples realize that GDP does not ensure real prosperity, an opportunity arises to break away from GDP as the god of indicators, replacing it with more subtle and complex measures that capture well-being and are therefore better guides for national strategies.

b. What will happen with the huge and growing debts of governments, businesses and individuals?

c. Widening of the inequality gap between countries (those who won from the crisis vs. those who lost), or the crisis as equalizer, where giants fall to their knees and smaller, poorer countries forge ahead with minor injuries?

d. Trigger to scale down globalization, the great pandemic accelerator, versus opportunity to create a more fair, transparent, equitable model of globalization, increasing collaboration and interdependence.

e. Will international alliances and organizations impose criteria about readiness for crisis on their members?

f. Huge government bailouts: exacerbating inequality (taxpayers funding corporates), versus fairer models in which taxpayers share rewards of the bailouts as well as their risks.

g. Unprecedented stock and commodity market volatility leading to strong disillusionment with current investment mechanisms and corresponding losses as the public’s money flees to safer options, versus opportunity for even bigger gain for a connected minuscule minority.

E. Work, Business

       1. Work, employment

a. Working from home, now proven to be effective, becomes widespread, versus emphasis on all we couldn’t achieve without physical presence will strengthen demand to be present. Will hybrid models proliferate?

b. Influence on home/office design and therefore on real estate?. Will offices become smaller and homes larger? Will this affect prices? Locations? Architecture?

c. Workplaces hygiene will become a dominant concern, versus the apparition of a “magic chemical” that will make efforts to maintain hygiene appear quaint in retrospect.

d. IT becomes even more important than it is today. It converts into your partner, holding your hand for all your remote activities. Dependence on IT grows – the worst thing that can happen to an employee is to be left without a connection.

e. The gig economy – exponential growth of the perfect format for digital experts, deliveries, nomads, minimizing proximity to co-workers, services for lockdown, outsourcing for cash deprived businesses, only solution for many employed and more.

f. The gig economy – dramatic weakening: fear of proximity to variety of strangers (Uber, AirBnB), workers yearning for the safety of a salary, pensions, safety net.

g. A great gap between how “essential” a worker is considered and how much they are being paid. Will essential workers be able to leverage the crisis to improve their lot, or will society search for and find ways to continue their exploitation?

       2. Business: General

a. Values: a tremendous opportunity for businesses to live up to and showcase their values, accumulating loyalty points in the eyes of customers and prospects, versus moment of truth when values are shelved in favor of cost cutting and survival mode.

b. Recovery from the crisis. Most businesses will bounce back rapidly thanks to: pent up consumer demand, loans and grants injected by governments, benefits of low oil prices, accelerated COVID and health related activity, large government projects and contracts, or: Catastrophic slow recovery due to: huge debt, businesses who failed to survive the lockdown, furloughs converted into unemployed, unemployed failing to rejoin workforce, chain effect of businesses hit by low oil, inconsistent and insufficient governmental recovery plans, deflationary effects of uncertainty and fear.

c. Emerging and declining businesses (winners and losers from the crisis). Obvious winners and losers from lockdown: hand sanitizers, Zooms, take-aways, Netflixes, healthcare, analytics for the former; airlines, tourism, car makers, art industry in the latter. But, also, suppliers of the abovementioned and others influenced indirectly. In some of these “losing” categories, survivors may surprisingly end up way ahead of their pre-pandemic position thanks to the disappearance of competitors who did not survive COVID-death valley.

d. New and old competitors: united against the common enemy, companies frantically and generously opened their knowledge and markets to newcomers in order to jointly supply, say, masks or respirators, which may lead to a beautiful future of collaboration, or, to a fight to the death with newcomer competitors.

       3. Retail

a. Buyers’ behavior post weeks/months of remote buying and limited budgets (for the majority): trend towards buying less, sticking to the necessary, versus hoarding mentality to prepare for any eventuality.

b. Limited movement drives shoppers back to small shops close to home, or strengthens large retail outlets that can offer and deliver bulk discounts.

c. Barriers broken for the pre-CV non-digital-savvy, leading to dramatically increased share of online shopping, or nostalgic impulse to return to the “good old shops” pre-CV.

d. Shopping centers, malls – will they survive the need for social distancing even months after the first wave abates? Will they evolve, in terms of interior design? Opening hours? Activities for shoppers (to keep them from running back home quickly)? Hybrid models of collaboration with digital channels?

e. Shops and independent retailers animated by close to home shopping, versus massive closures due to cash flow, loans, competition from large players?

f. New models of retail will sprout and grow, such as smart subscription retail (for those who can afford it), while the trend for locally sourced produce increases because of distrust of the far and foreign.

       4. Supply chains

a. Push for cost saving and efficiency leads to leaner distribution structures, while worries about maintaining supplies in times of crisis drive preference for distributed supply chains, with hubs nearer to end users.

b. Strong push for 3D printing and on-site manufacturing or last mile assembly to skip steps in distribution, versus recognition of the limitations of these technologies.

c. Manufacturers will put a premium on old and trusted relationship with suppliers, who can be trusted to deliver under any conditions, or widespread search for alternative suppliers, and the safer redundancy of multiple suppliers.

d. Companies opting for large inventories vs. just-in-time with close-by reliable suppliers.

e. As commercial flights and other means of transportation are prohibited, their providers close and/or their prices rise, alternative options for delivery will appear: drones, finally?

f. The benefits of globalized supply chains have been emphasized by their absence, but so have the dangers of relying on them. As local governments invoke various versions of the “Defense Production Act”, will globalization continue or will there be increased focus on localization and supply chain continuity?

       5. Transportation

a. Public transportation in pandemic times: increase in usage with alternative models, hygiene and spacing of passengers, versus decrease in usage per limited movement in public.

b. Rebound for autonomous shared vehicles, as users prefer to avoid proximity to drivers, vs. preference for own cars, with full control of access to strangers.

c. Uber and shared rides: surge as people avoid mass transport, versus crash as gig drivers without safety nets go bust vs. shift to drivers as employees

d. Strong adoption of alternative non-polluting fuels following rising consciousness of the damaging effects of oil-based, vs. return to oil guzzling habits due to record low prices.

       6. Manufacturing

a. Increased automation to minimize dependence on virus-sensitive humans vs. increased use of humans for remote operation of manufacturing equipment.

b. Versatility – proven ability to switch to manufacturing totally different products in crisis mode may lead to adoption of this flexibility in commercial contexts.

c. On-shoring backlash to off-shoring trend driven by: governments’ efforts to “bring back jobs”, fear of geographically long supply chains and increased automation.

d. Focus on redesign of plants for distancing and hygiene? And/or emphasis on workers’ well-being and health? Voluntary or driven by legislation?

How to Choose an Innovation Consulting Firm

Published date: July 3, 2018 в 7:46 am

Written by:

Category: Innovation,Strategy

innovation consulting firm

The Innovation Consulting Firm Landscape

The innovation consultancy landscape has become immensely complex, dynamic, and varied in the last several years, especially when discussing quantity. There are a variety of methodologies, approaches, as well as consultancies of all sizes. McKinsey and large accounting firms have made acquisitions of innovation consulting firms, which means the distinction between the mega-consultancies and the more boutique consultancies has become blurred.

Since the innovation consulting firm atmosphere is so dense, there are some common sense rules of thumb one must use when choosing an innovation consulting 

dynamic innovation consulting firm

firm. Luckily, our good friend, Drew Boyd, created a list of criteria that you can utilize when choosing an innovation consulting firm.  However, due to the richness of the current marketplace and the dynamic approach, some of this list is no longer relevant. While this may be the case, it still includes a lot of useful advice. The below advice and tools will help you make an informed and educated decision when choosing an innovation consulting firm.

Choosing Innovation Consultants

By: Drew Boyd
Choosing an innovation consulting firm is challenging for two reasons: the client is not always clear what type of innovation they want, or they are not sure what type of innovation a consultant offers.
Here are three factors to consider when choosing an innovation consultant:

1.  TYPE of consultant

2.  METHOD used

3.  ROLE of the consultant.

The innovation space has become so crowded that I group them into four types (I-D-E-A):

INVENTION:  These are consultants that help you create new-to-the-world ideas.  They have particular expertise in creativity methods or idea generation tools.  Their main focus is the generation of many new product or service ideas.

DESIGN:  These are consultants that take an existing product, service, or idea and put some new, innovative form to it.  They have particular expertise in industrial design or human factors design.  Their main focus is transforming the way a product is used or experienced.

ENGINEERING:  These are consultants that help you make the new idea work in practice.  They have particular expertise in technology, science, research, and problem-solving.  Their main focus is building it.

ACTUALIZATION:  These are consultants that help you get the innovation into the marketplace.  They have particular expertise in marketing processes, brand, or commercial launch of a product or service.  Their main focus is selling it.

Step One: The challenge is many consultants claim to be all of these.  While true for some, my sense is that all firms started off as one type and then expanded to cover the others.  The question to ask yourself is: would you be better off matching your need to their original core expertise, or would you be better off going to a one-stop shop…a firm that can do it all even though their core expertise is, say, design.  How do you know what type the firm really is?  Study the biography of their founder.  What was the founder’s education, experience, work background, interests, etc?  The founder is where the core orientation of the firm begins.  The other practice types get bolted on later.

Step Two: Understanding their method.  The first question I ask consultants is, “Do you know how to innovate?”  The second question is, “How?”  I want to understand their method of innovation, and I want to be able to explain it to other people.  I want to know the efficacy.  Has it worked in the past and will it work on my project?  Show me the data.

Step Three: Understanding the role of the innovation consultant.  Is this a DIY (do-it-yourself) approach, where you are given some software or other resources to create innovation on your own?  Is this a DIWY (do-it-with-you) approach where the consultant leads and facilitates groups of your employees to innovate together?  Is this a DIFY (do-it-for-you) approach, where the consultant takes your problem specification and comes back with their recommended solutions?  Or, is this training?  All of these roles are valid depending on your need.

I am impressed with the talent and variety of consultants in the innovation space today.  It becomes even more impressive when you select the right one for the job.

I hope the above will help you in finding the right innovation consultancy. Since we are always on the look-out for the right clients to work with, here is a short questionnaire. Please fill in and, if relevant, we can have a short 20-minute chat to see if we can fit each other’s needs. We look forward to hearing from you.

Get our innovation model that has worked for 1000+ companies.

    No thanks, not now.