Part 1: Sources of Innovation: If You're a Hammer, Everything Looks Like A Nail

This article begins the first in a multi-part series about uncovering and utilizing the Sources of Innovation in businesses, non-profit and other institutions. Because this work is based on social systems it provides insight into how we can lead change in times of great upheaval or chaos for individuals and organizations. When I talk about innovation I'm thinking beyond the common idea of creating new goods and services. It makes practical sense that organizations who produce break-through products and services and overcome difficult obstacles also have to become more innovative in the way they work internally and how they partner and serve customers. To paraphrase Albert Einstein: Problems cannot be solved with the same thinking that created them. Have you ever wondered why?

Some dilemmas seem quite straight forward and others are more complicated, but what makes them so? Study after study shows that 90% of all formal plans do not reach their expected outcomes. Is there something wrong with the way we plan? Or are the difficulties somewhere else?

To understand why this happens, it's help to understand the complexity of the issue you are working with. I use a model called, The Stacey Agreement-Certainty Matrix. This model helps us understand an anticipated change on a continuum of complexity rather than as a fixed phenomena. At the intersection of the two axes you'll see "close to certainty" and "close to agreement." I like to think of certainty and agreement as two forces that create a field in which change can occur -- the matrix represents a sort of "force field" for examining the forces of complexity for the change you are anticipating.

Those changes that are close to certainty and agreement as thought of as "simple." Simple change, in this instance, is not meant to infer that the proposed change project is undemanding; rather, it means the the process of achieving the change is fairly linear and straight-forward. For a change to be considered "simple" there must be strong agreement among stakeholders on:

• What the needed change is
• The underlying, issues, resources and competencies needed resolve them

AND a good deal of certainty that:

• The processes and methods proposed are likely to be available and successful at achieving the desired change.

A good test for simple change is one in which the number of variables are limited and the issues are likely ones with which you and your organization have had a lot of experience and a successful track record. Any challenges that engages you in new territories would likely not be considered simple. Many organizations approach these types of simple changes successfully using traditional management methods and tools designed to focus your attention on producing outcomes. Such tools tend to be effective at managing tactics such as MBOs, gantt charts and the like.

The further you move out on either axis, the more complicated your change becomes. The more complex an anticipated change becomes, the less effectiveness you will find in using management tools aimed at improving tactics and processes. While those traditional tools are still needed to accomplish all changes, they do not provide the kind of organizational lift needed to consider possible options for complex and chaotic change situations. For those situations you must learn to tap the sources of innovation.

Coming Up: We'll take a look at the things that contribute to complexity.

-- Sources of Innovation is based on work developed in collaboration with my colleague and friend Dee Endelman. For more information on workshops or speaking engagements send inquiries to info@northshoregroup.net.

(c)2009, Lucy E Garrick. All rights reserved. Written permission is required prior to reproduction.

Acknowledgements: Ralph Stacey, Professor of Management, Director of the Complexity and Management Centre at the University of Hertforshire, UK.