Innoversity Blog

Innovate to stay healthy

In this interesting article from New York times Janet Rae-Dupree describes how important it is to keep challenging ourselves and our habits; to stay creative in our mind and daily patterns.

Brain researchers have discovered that when we stay creative and consciously develop new habits, we create new brain cells, that can jump our trains of thought onto new, innovative tracks. So the article describes how we - if we challenge ourselves to try new things the more inherently creative we become, both in our work and in our private lifes.

Staying creative may be able to keep your mind healthy, so do keep it up ;-D

Open innovation and diversity

Christopher Meyer, who is the CEO of Monitor Network is interviewed in this BusinessWeek podcast, where he talks about social networks, innovation and none the least diversity!

One quote that I particularly liked from the podcast was when Chris was talking about the increasing interest in open innovation:

"I think that the reason why open Innovation goes so deep can be explained by two things: First, new science has shown how diversity in essential to novelty, which also maps how gene-pools work: if you want a new strain of corn, you can't do that with a single clone of corn; you need lots of kinds of corn! If you want new thoughts, you need lots of kinds of thinkers!"

and Christopher Meyer continues....

"There is a second reason why open innovation is growing so rapidly right now (...), we've been through a period of about five years, in which companies got extremely lean and reduced their investments in the new and the innovative! (...) So now we have ended up with companies which are low on diversity and high on efficiency, and not particularly innovative. So suddenly now, growth is more important, innovation is more important, but how are we going to do it? Well, the fastest and best way is to look outside the walls of the organization, for a diverse set of resources that can help."

And I can only agree with Meyers on this! You should definately check out the podcast, Christopher Meyer really presents some interesting ideas and perspectives!

OPEN DIVERSITY: LINKING THE INSIDE WITH THE OUTSIDE
One of the primary challenges in engaging in open innovation activities however is, that to effectively mobilize and tap into diverse networks on the outside or the organization; you also need a certain degree of diversity on the inside, which unfortunately only very few of the organizations which have set off to introduce different open innovation initiatives are actually aware of.

Social networks tend to be demographically aligned due to network homophily, which basically means that we as individuals tend to seek out and learn from similar others (as opposed to diverse others), which results in most of us building networks of people similar to ourselves. Organizations with a relatively homogenuos workforce, will therefore likely, only have access to a relatively small external network, as most employees will tend to know practically the same people (Lazer & André-Clark, 2000; Granovetter, 1971). This definately makes it more difficult for homogenious organisations to identify and none the least, tap into external ideas, knowledge and resource!

One of the primary promoters of open innovation is the conglomerage P&G, with their "connect & develop strategy", which calls for 50 percent of innovation to come from the outside! And P&G knows and understands the importance of internal diversity, for them to succeed in truly mastering OPEN innovation.

I was privileged enough to actually assist P&G draft what we called their "Global Innoversity Strategy" last year, which linked the effort of building a diverse workforce directly to innovation efforts. Something I had previously been attempting to convince many other organizations of the need for doing, but P&G, to my knowledge, is the very first - and only - organisation which has actually done so! Hopefully, once I am done with my Ph.d., I will be able to convince many more organizations of the need for doing so!

WHAT MONITOR NETWORK DOES
What Monitor Network does is to help organizations gain access to exactly such a diversity of external resources, such as business practitioners, scientist, politicians etc, to make use of this external diversity of knowledge and competences in their actual innovation practice! Monitor Network helps organizations tap into such networks either just as a one-day event, or as a standing advisory board, much like they have done with P&G and their Design and Innovation Council.

A highly interesting approach to open innovation, which can serve as great way of tapping into external knowledge diversity. However i would find it important to stress that open innovation requires companies to build and maintain knowledge diversity BOTH on the inside AND on the outside of the organization to succeed with open innovation!

Researching open source innovation

Sladjana Vujovic is a visiting scholar here at Scancor / Stanford University, and because I find her research into open innovation to be both interesting and none the least important, I asked her for a mini-interview about her research.

Course why is it that we only learn about interesting research projects when they are all over and done with?  In the future I will therefore keep you informed about interesting research in the making  that I come across on my own innovation research journey.... And I am proud to hereby present my first innovation research in the making interview with Sladjana Vujovic:

Tell me about your research project?
My PhD thesis is about user-driven product development and innovation. The case I am studying is an Open Source Software (OSS) project. The purpose of my study is to offer insight into Open Source phenomenon through enhanced understanding of Open Source cooperation and product development seen from an organizational perspective – and to provide a meaningful guide to action for managers based on this study.

What are the primary findings?
I am only at the beginning of the data analysis. Hence, I do not have any concrete results yet, but I have made some interesting observations so far. One of them is the issue of recruiting the right people. Since OSS projects are based on voluntary participation, the challenge consists in how to attract the right people for the teams and how to fill out different roles.

Another thing I find both relevant and interesting has to do with the role of computer-mediated communication. There are some indications that some forms of online communication (which are actually used a lot by OSS communities) may not be best suited for an effective cooperation, decision making, discussions, execution and coordination of tasks. Furthermore, the world of virtuality creates an environment from which it is easy to disappear, when needed.

This thus has consequences for a person’s feeling of commitment compared to a traditional work place, where face-to-face communication and physical contact are present. Those are only a few of my observations… but more on them when I finish the analysis. 

What are the potential implications of those findings?
Managers need to realize that embarking on the open innovation journey implies different strategic choices between different strategies, and that it will mean increasingly having to balance the need for secrecy with the need for openness, as well as reconsidering the role and potential of their competitors and customers, who, in an open-source innovation context, may prove to be important partners.

From a strategic point of view, the OS-based alternative points to a need for a redefinition of the business model to take account of the fact that the focus of value creation has two loci of interest. One is related to the product itself. However, the associated incentive here is not directly financial (as in the traditional business model) but is indirectly of financial value, in the form of education and training (for the developer) and a higher degree of customer satisfaction (inasmuch as there will be no features the user has not asked for). Moreover, the direct financial focus of such a different business model will have to move further down the value chain to embrace new supporting consultancy and/or support services.

Where can I find more information about your research?
You can find more information on the Århus Business School Website:  or by contacting me via email

Serial Innovation (Sopranos II)

I already made one post about serial innovation, but thought that I wanted to develop that trail of thought a little further, with a look into the processes employed by the Sopranos crew, and how they benefit from the differences in the group in their serial innovation.

have been watching a few of the behind the scenes featurettes, as well as looking into interviews with both the executive producer David Chase, as well as audio commentaries by both producers, directors and screenwriters, in order to better understand the process they go though in the development of each of the Sopranos episodes. And it actually is quite an interesting picture emerging from these leisure-time studies of mine (some would call it procastrination, but since I do it for the blog, is most certainly is not ;.D)-

In the development of each of the episodes, the overall story-line, it seems that the team of writers, producers and directors meet on a regular basis, where they use collective ‘sit-downs’ (as Tony Soprano would call them), where the together will discuss and develop on the stories and episodes, and what they want to happen to whom, as a group.

After this initial brainstorming, they will decide who of the writers should then continue working on the storyboard, and then one of the staff writers will go off and write up a first draft of the episode and then come back and present it to the team. Based on what the team then decides, changes will then be made by the whole team, and sometimes another writer will be asked to re-do it or alter the whole episode script.

Once the script then has been approved, it will be given to a director. The directors of the show cannot pick and choose the episodes they would like to direct, but are given an episode based on whom the group finds to be the best director of that particular episode, and then they take over from there.

Often the director is someone from the outside, not part of the staff, who will then be working with the cast in creating each episode. Some of the directors have directed more than one episode, but many of them are newcomers. I have not yet been able to find out very much about how this use of director-as-newcomer is perceived by the cast. I have heard several of the directors mention that it feels quite strange to be ‘in charge’ at the set, whilst at the same time being the newcomer. But it most certainly provides for a continuous addition of new perspectives, and the director has to build on the talent working with him, he/she will never get away with a “my way only-approach”.

I would however like to find out what the cast thinks of the fact that they are continually confronted with a new director. They will usually spend between 8-12 days shooting each episode, and with each season consisting of app. 10 episodes, they are likely to be instructed by a new director ever other week or so.

Imagine working on an innovation project where the project manager is replaced every two weeks?

Innovative Wines at Bonny Doons

In Santa Cruz Mountains about an  hour drive from Palo Alto reigns the vineyard Bonny Doon, established by the controversial Randahll Grahm, who is doing what he can to challenge the rules, norms and dogmas of winemaking, and who calls himself “the champion of the strange and heterodox”, whilst at the same time celebrating and cherishing the classical wine paradigms.

Bonny Doom in a strange way seems to be able to balance the thing sword of between classic and modern winemaking. Provoking and challenging the rules of the game, WHILST at the same time pushing the envelope in terms of what you can do with classical and natural production methods. An interesting case for innovation!

And let me admit right away, I am a wine enthusiast, with a strong preference for the classical wines of the Rhone Valley, and must therefore admit to being extremely sceptical when I first heard about Randall Grahm the proprietor and guiding spirit behind Bonny Doon. Famous for challenging most all the rules of winemaking, whilst at the same time being one of the most radical of the Rhone Rangers (Winemakers dedicated to advancing the Knowledge of Rhone Grapes grown in America and the enjoyment of the Wines Produced from those Grapes).

But in spite of my conservatism when it comes to the merits of a good wine, I also appreciate when rules are being broken and something new and innovative emerges. And this is exactly what Randall Grahm and the Bonny Doon Vineyard seems to offer. After tasting his Rhone inspired signature wine Cigare Volante, his Zinfandel-based Cardinal Zin, and especially now that his tablewines Big House Red and Big House White , I had to both respect and appreciate his work.

Randall Grahm and Bonny Doon really provide for a great case for innovation. He  has made his winery a major power in the California wine industry by exploring demented ideas, by breaking all the accepted rules of marketing and by making wines that are equally as interesting to talk about as they are to drink.There seems to be nothing that he is not ready to do. He freezes grapes to make ice wine, he uses wild labels with exotic names, he collaborates with winemakers in Europe, he is dedicated to riesling in California, Ranger on the cover of the Wine Spectator in his role as the leader of the Rhone Rangers.

The mantra of Bonny Doon goes as follows:

• Have as much fun with wine as the relevant governmental agencies will allow
• Produce wines and wine labels that will scintillate the sensibilities of the most jaded imbiber (to see labels click here)
• Retain as much of the natural qualities of the grapes (especially fragrance) through careful handling and minimal cellar treatment
• Pay close attention to the chestnut that wine is produced in the vineyard

I am – as a wine traditionalist – not much of a fan of Micro-oxygenation and the freezing of grapes, but I can bear with much when the wine is both good and non-expensive, while at the same time challenging and innovative in its approach.

Like the labels for instance, Bonny Doon lables are not the ususal gold-edged, black italics on a white background with a nicely drawn chauteau as most other wine labels. No. Bonny Doon labels feature tattooed ladies, flying saucers, and monkeys in fezes. Some of them are even provocative enough to be banned in Ohio and Washington. Every label want’s you to laugh, to feel, to think. They make use of artists like Ralph Stedman to design their labels.

Randall Grahm truely is a rebel with a cause. For over 20 years this California winemaker has resisted the “bigger is better” ethic practiced by most American wineries. Instead of making palate-numbing powerhouses, Grahm favors wines with finesse. Instead of choosing Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay, he favors the likes of Mourvedre, Marsanne, and Malvasia Bianca—grapes that he believes are better suited to California’s climate. Grahm seeks, in short, diversity in the vineyard and deliciousness in the glass.

Managing serial innovation....

Over the last couple of weeks I have become increasingly fascinated with the hugely popular and most talked-about TV series “Sopranos”. The mobster series features the life of depressive mafia boss Tony Soprano and the life of his two families. Apparently, no American show on cable has ever been more successful with both critics and fans - and with good reason. I love it!

Watching The Sopranos on DVD is a great evening get-away from my writing, reading, thinking and analysis work done during daytime at Stanford. But even while watching Sopranos, innovation (the focus of my Ph.D.) never completely leaves my mind. And so I started wondering how on earth the Sopranos and other successful TV series manage to keep innovating - to capture their audience show after show, year after year?

How do the successful TV series crew and cast manage this? How do they manage what one might appropriately call ‘serial innovation?’

I realize that I do not have the answer to this question, but yet I started wondering - and began looking at the team behind the success of Sopranos - the cast, the crew - and I was soon to discover one interesting thing; namely that the managerial team (producer and co-producers, screenwriter and director) is NEVER the same from one episode to the next. NEVER! Is that not interesting?

For every episode of the Sopranos, either a new director or a new screenwriter will be added to the managerial team and someone else will exit; only the chief producer (Sopranos creator David Chase) has been constant over the six year production period. Everyone else is in and out - constantly. To illustrate this ever changing managerial team, I have made a list of the writers and directors for each of the 13 episodes of the first season, sourced from Wikipedia (click image to enlarge).

                                                                                                                                                              Could one of the explaining factors behind the ‘art of serial innovation’ be this constant constant mix and re-mix (many of the names appear several times) of the managerial team?

It does most certainly make sense in that it would provide for the continuous re-creation and re-negotiation of the set, the series itself, the story-lines, the cast etc. Different people constantly not only ‘manage’ the story, the crew, the cast and the series, but also prevent ‘the way things are done around here’ from being introduced to the set.

Such managerial flux forces the crew to continuously negotiate and re-negotiate their individual part, both with the newcomers, and with the existing cast and crew - which maintains a sort of permeable boundary around the ‘innovation group’, preventing them from becoming too settled in their roles too quickly, one of the primary barriers to successful innovation.

Imagine if organizational innovation was managed in the same way? Imagine if you brought in a new ‘screenwriter’ (content manager) for every innovation project? Or a new director (process manager) for every new episode (innovation project)?

This was just one thing we could learn from the production and innovation of successful TV series, but I know that there are many many more and I already look forward to exploring them further ..... so if this has you interest, please stay tuned for another episode of the innoversity  blog ;-D

Researching innovation + diversity

It is nothing new that very little research has been done over the years, into the role of diversity in innovation - it has been my concern for several years, and was the major reason for me embarking on my current Ph.D. project, even though I really do not think of my self as a researcher. But several years as a consultant with Innoversity (my own company), where I was working with diversity as a way to leverage innovation in multinational organisations, only confirmed this.

And now as I am doing my analysis work for my Ph.D. I thought I should back this claim of mine with a little data, by looking at the number of research articles published over the last 20 years, which mention both the word diversity and the word innovation. This is still a work in progress, but if you take a closer look at the graph above, you will see that the total number of articles published since 1986 is only 112, whereas the total number of articles about innovation in the same period was as impressive as 6215 articles. The role of diversity therefore seems to attract very little attention by innovation scholars, and has been neglected by innovation scholars and researchers over the last two decades; albeit the graph indicates a small increase in the number of articles over the period in question.

Moreover, the articles published about innovation + diversity over the last 20 years were published in nothing less than 77 different academic journals, which is an unusually high amount of different journals from a range of highly different fields, disciplines and industries.

Furthermore, it was actually only 20 out of the 77 journals which had more than one article about innovation and diversity; the remainder of journals, e.g. 57 journals, featured only one single article about innovation and diversity. The highest number of articles about innovation and diversity published in one single journal was 6 (se table below), which was not in one of the innovation journals as one could expect, but in the European journal: ”Research Policy”.

With 77 different academic journals dealing with this topic, the issue does not seem to get very much attention in any particular journal or academic discipline. This seems to indicate two different sets of problems: first of all the lack of knowledge about the role of diversity in innovation, revealed by the very low number of articles published about the field, and secondly, it is relatively difficult for each of the innovation scholars in the field to build on each others research, because they represent highly different academic disciplines and industries, while at the same time allowing researchers to benefit from their own academic diversity, in furthering the overall research into the role of diversity in innovation.

It will be interesting to see which one of the two will prevail.....