Innovation requires your organization to do something new.  Not necessarily new to the world, but new to your company.  If you're doing something truly new to your organization, then it's impossible to know what the end result will be.  Every company is unique, so even borrowed ideas cannot be incorporated without careful integration.

One of my clients said "You can only operationalize what is known."  He is right.  And yet, I see so many companies looking for detailed innovation processes that will dictate the end result before a project actually begins.  There are even more consultants who are selling processes that promise to do just that.

Most companies make their money by setting up processes that can run on autopilot.  This only works if you know what you are making, and you have done it before.  You have a benchmark for improvement.  However, the results of an innovation process are not known.  There is no process, tool, or technique that can determine the answer for you.

A good process will show structure and rigor in guiding the thought process, but it will never dictate an answer.  An autopilot cannot make decisions.  It can only execute a preset response to a known set of inputs.  When you are in uncharted territory you need good people to make decisions based on the new information they receive.  It is irresponsible to think that this responsibility can be passed off by choosing a "process" that will make the decisions for you.

I have repeatedly heard the word insight as something to be observed, as in "We observed several insights on that consumer interview."

There are several entries in dictionary.com for the word insight.  In different ways, they all describe insight as an understanding of the true motivational forces that drive actions, define underlying truths, shed light on, or help to solve a problem.  Assuming that is true, insights cannot be observed directly; they need to be inferred or derived by thinking critically about the observations we make.

The word insight, as it is applied to consumer research, is increasingly misrepresented.  Observing behaviors and describing them is a fairly straightforward exercise, and many people can easily do this.  Deriving insights requires the ability to observe, infer why the observation occurred, formulate a theory, test the hypothesis against multiple data sources, and construct an argument that will prove that the conclusion is valid. A smaller subset of people who possess a specific aptitude and attitude are best suited to do this.

Almost everyone, however, has the ability to understand the difference between an observation and an insight. Mistaking them is understandable for most, but if you use consumer insights to inform your work, please make sure you know the difference.

What ideas has your company passed up because you lacked the resources to pursue them at the time?  Companies often pursue the ideas they know are achievable. 

Once the needs of the market are fully understood, many of those old ideas become viable.  Sometimes it's a matter of looking at them in a new way.  Other times it's a matter of having a reason to pursue an idea that may require more work to develop. Or sometimes an idea was ahead of its time, and now the world will be ready for it. 

Whatever the case may be, it makes sense to capture every idea and keep them in a place where they can be used as a source of inspiration.  Maybe create a library called The Cutting Room Floor or something like that.

Ultimately, an idea is only good if it satisfies your criteria.  When the criteria changes, then the cutting room floor may provide you with a wealth of solutions.

If your organization is like most, there are many processes in place that ensure no one can make a mistake that could cost the company vast sums of money, damage its reputation, or do other terrible damage.  While many of these processes are in place for a good reason, has anyone ever looked at the trade-offs that have been made as a result?

The reason I point this out is that I find it interesting that these processes are never, ever questioned.  Even though I've watched companies miss out on very lucrative opportunities as a result of blindly following existing processes, I have been left wondering why no one questioned what else could have been done to have avoided missing out on the opportunity.  A lot of effort goes into protecting the company from harm, which makes it all the more interesting that missed opportunities are seldom viewed as harmful.

I highly value thoughtfulness, and due diligence, and I am not advocating that companies abandon all existing processes to encourage people to chase after anything they want.  Far from it.  I just wanted to point out that it does seem a bit odd that questions about the value of missed opportunities are seldom, if ever, raised.  It would be interesting to see if there are some processes that are costing more than they save.

Do you know why all the processes at your company exist?  Would you know when their use should be questioned and/or challenged?

I talk a lot about learning from your market and applying that insight to grow your business. However, yesterday I realized that it's just as important to be aware of what you are teaching your market.

In a recent post on Jeff Jarvis' blog, he referenced a reader who talked about the ways the news industry needs to evolve its thinking to survive in the new economy. The new thinking is comprised of "Google'esque" ideas that focus on the value of journalism as a service rather than the paper as a product.  I left a comment that I think is worth exploring more thoroughly.

While I think the ideas presented are good, they do not address what I feel is a more fundamental issue in the news industry.  They have taught the market that the newspaper has value, and the content should be free.  While I'm sure they didn't do it on purpose, they lost sight of why people bought newspapers in the first place.  When they made the move to the web, they missed the opportunity to capture this value in a new way.  Instead they gave it away, and going forward it will be difficult to capture value for what consumers now expect to be free.

I do believe there is great value in good journalism.  Before the industry can pursue radically different business models to capture this value, they must first do whatever is necessary to decouple the journalism industry from the newspaper industry in the hearts and minds of consumers.  The market will never value journalism if the industry cannot demonstrate this value clearly, consistently, and separately from newspapers.

Are you aware of what your company's behavior is teaching your market?